
Lack of exercise kills roughly as many as smoking, study says - arjn
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/07/lack-of-exercise-kills-roughly-as-many-as-smoking-study-says.html
======
nazgulnarsil
To combat the broscience prevalent in this thread on what a good exercise
regime looks like, here are some reviews of exercise science on the
relationship between different activities and health.

Cardio, vigorous is better [http://extremelongevity.net/2011/08/31/more-
vigorous-exercis...](http://extremelongevity.net/2011/08/31/more-vigorous-
exercise-associated-with-greater-longevity/)

Resistance training, how much is optimal?
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373)

How much total activity?
[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078777)

My take on all this: It seems like you want to be burning at least 1000
calories a week. There have been benefits reported at higher levels but the
first 1k calories are guaranteed to get you a large proportion of the
benefits. A routine of lifting twice a week and doing rigorous cardio 2-3 days
a week puts you comfortably in the 1000-1500 calories burned range.

To the people who are saying that the normal activity of everyday life is
adequate, you are fooling yourself because you don't want to have to make
changes. It's fine if you want to do that but please don't spread FUD to
others who don't know any better. You are hurting them.

~~~
dsuth
1000 calories a week seems a little bit low, but I'll admit that's just
anecdotal - I'll do about 1kcal in a single 10 kilometre run.

In terms of fitness and general health, I notice a big difference if I'm
getting regular (ie. most days of the week, allowing for 1 or 2 rest days)
exercise of about half an hour, and at least one longer run/ride/whatever, out
to about an hour or so. Take any excuse to do things the hard way when you're
exercising - push up hills, do sprints, to intervals etc, and you'll notice an
amazing difference.

Only downside to all this exercise is that you _really_ need your 8 hours of
sleep a night to recover.

~~~
runamok
Closer to 600 to 750 calories for a 10k but I agree 1000 calories for a week
is quite low.

~~~
dsuth
Depends on weight.

~~~
runamok
It does indeed. And elevation traveled. And pace. Per the runner's world
calculator they'd have to be 215 lbs. running 10 min per mile Which I suppose
is possible.

------
antirez
Three years I don't miss a single week of workout: great that it creates long
term benefits, but the _short_ term ones are already incredible: I'm better at
parenting (I can carry my daughter for hours without any side effect for
example), more able to focus at work, sleep quality is better, stress level
much lower, and I look better. All this for 40 minutes a day 5 days per week.
The best deal of my life. My routine is monday,wednesday,friday: 15 min cardio
+ bench press and squat (using a power cage, high volume for both exercise).
Tuesday,thursday: 20 min high intensity interval training + chinups or pullups
or over the head press depending on the day. Hint: the time I use for the
exercises is small compared to the amount of sets I try to do per session
because I took the extreme way of an home office that has an included gym.
Pic: [http://antirez.com/misc/office.jpg](http://antirez.com/misc/office.jpg)
Hint2: don't train to failure.

~~~
obstacle1
Regarding hint 2, it depends on what you're aiming for and also personal
style. Training to failure while rotating muscle groups on a 3-day cycle is a
superb way to see results and increase strength quickly. It is also a much
more rewarding way to train for some of us than to avoid pushing it.

~~~
sliverstorm
It also depends on the exercise. I will bench to failure any day if I have a
spot, but I really don't like squat to failure.

------
leobelle
What's enough exercise? I walk 20 minutes a day. That should be good enough or
do I need to turn into a fitness nut and work on strengthening every muscle in
my body, eating raw nuts or whatever and run 5 miles a day?

Like if the tradeoff for ultra-longevity is a shitty life of being obsessively
active I think I'll pick a shorter life. If just a reasonable amount of
exercise is ok and I don't have to work to look like I should be on the cover
of a magazine, then I can do that.

Edit: reasonable question gets downvoted.

~~~
sliverstorm
_Edit: reasonable question gets downvoted._

Your question was kind of emotionally charged, and it sounded like you were
getting upset, which is what probably set off the downvotes.

 _if the tradeoff for ultra-longevity is a shitty life of being obsessively
active I think I 'll pick a shorter life._

Being active doesn't have to suck. Sports are fun, man.

~~~
brianwillis
_Sports are fun, man._

No, winning is fun.

~~~
sliverstorm
Winning is fun, but just playing sports is too, and I participate in plenty of
sports that are not competitive, or competitive sports organized in a
noncompetitive fashion (for example, constantly rotating or re-balancing
teams)

------
spodek
Calling activity that raises your heart rate exercise makes it seem like
something you have to go out of your way to do, like to join a gym or buy a
machine.

It seems we benefit from having a healthy lifestyle -- like walking or biking
to work, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, playing sports for fun,
playing with our kids, running around with pets instead of just walking them,
gardening, and so on. Our evolutionary ancestors probably lived like (though I
can't cite sources) that and led our bodies to evolve to thrive best with that
kind of activity.

So many people are big on paleo diets. I wonder when a paleo lifestyle will
become popular.

~~~
shas3
It is fallacious to say 'just because our ancestors lived that way, it is
good'. There is seldom sufficient evidence to back up such claims. Paleo diets
[1] are not necessarily good. Nor are paleo-lifestyles [2]. Even several
claims of paleo-enthusiasts like Christopher McDougal ('Born to Run') and
Jared Diamond are disputed and contradicted by research [3].

A posteriori, there may be 'evolutionary'-type reasons for say, our body's
over-eagerness to eat sugary stuff [4]. That doesn't mean that you can
attribute everything to evolution without sufficient evidence.

The truth is what it is: lack of exercise and poor diet both contribute to
increased risk of diseases. You can appeal to 'our ancestors' lifestyle' as
reliably as you can appeal to say, the benefits of 'biblical diet'. Both are
identically fallacious.

(As an aside, there are several comments on different posts in HN that wrongly
apply evolutionary principles to everything from coding practices to
behavioral traits [5]!)

[1] [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-
hal...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-half-baked-
how-hunter-gatherer-really-eat/)

[2] [http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-
style-r...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-
running-best-new-studies-cast-doubt/)
[3][http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jan/09/history-
society](http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jan/09/history-society)
[4][http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-
sweet-t...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-
tooth.html)
[5][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7050286](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7050286)

~~~
stcredzero
_It is fallacious to say 'just because our ancestors lived that way, it is
good'._

Well, sure, if you're claiming it's some sort of lemma in a proof. Stuff our
ancestors used to do is likely to be neutral or good for you, due to the way
evolution works. The key is _likely_. I'd agree with you that it's a fallacy
to hold "ancestors used to do it" as some kind of oracle.

 _You can appeal to 'our ancestors' lifestyle' as reliably as you can appeal
to say, the benefits of 'biblical diet'. Both are identically fallacious._

There should be a name for the meta-fallacy of treating what should be a hazy
rule of thumb as a mathematical identity.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
_> Stuff our ancestors used to do is likely to be neutral or good for you, due
to the way evolution works._

That's not true when it comes to age related diseases like cancer or heart
disease. Through most of mankind's evolution these diseases did not affect our
procreation rate at all.

Evolution optimizes for procreation not for longevity. It is very likely that
an ample supply of burgers, fries and fat cheese (especially during winter)
would have led to higher birth rates not lower ones.

It could well be that much of our ancestors' lifestyle is poison for anyone
over 50.

~~~
nkoren
> Evolution optimizes for procreation not for longevity.

Incorrect. Evolution optimises for propagation of genes. Procreation is one
but not the element of that process.

Think about this way: if you are living by yourself in the forest and have
octuplets, then you are very good at procreation; if you die immediately
afterwards, then you are evolutionarily unfit despite your procreative
abilities, because none of your young will survive to pass on their genes. For
creatures like humans -- born with helpless young -- the person who has two
children and lives long enough to ensure that they can pass on their own genes
is more evolutionarily fit than the person who procreates like mad but lets
all their children die.

In our evolutionary environment, post-procreative individuals played vital
roles in ensuring the survival of the young: taking care of children while
their parents were off hunting and gathering; preparing foodstuffs; passing on
lore about which plants were dangerous to eat, etc. In this way, the presence
of elders facilitated the propagation of genes -- right up to the point where
the care and maintenance of said elders becomes such a drain on resources that
it begins to diminish rather than enhance the survival and procreation
prospects for the young. That's quite a long time, however, so generally
speaking, genetic lines that produce long-lived healthy individuals who
enhance the survival prospects of the young will be more successful than
genetic lines which don't.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
If most people have children in their 20s, there is very little evolutionary
advantage to living beyond, say, 60. Until then, they will have passed on all
their valuable wisdom.

~~~
dllthomas
I think the key point is that ability to help ensure survival and reproduction
of great-grandchildren matters (evolutionarily) half as much as the same of
grandchildren, which matters half as much as the same of children. Though in
principle there's nothing preventing continued ability to have children in
later years...

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I understand the argument, I just don't believe that surviving elders were
actually helpful for the procreation and survival of their offspring during
most of evolution. Not beyond an age where cancer and heart disease start to
play a role.

Older men can have children in principle, but older women can not. So those
men would have to compete with younger men for the remaining fertile women.
The birth rate of a woman would probably not change just because there are
more old men available to her.

~~~
dllthomas
_" I understand the argument, I just don't believe that surviving elders were
actually helpful for the procreation and survival of their offspring during
most of evolution. Not beyond an age where cancer and heart disease start to
play a role."_

I don't think I was disagreeing with you, there. My point was that regardless
of how much benefit an ancestor can give to their descendants, _if_ you have
declining fertility beyond some age the benefits of doing so attenuate with
time.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I do agree with you that the benefit attenuates with time, but we seem to
disagree a great deal about steepness of that attenuation. You're talking
about great-grandchildren. I believe that in a hunter-gatherer society the
benefit of having parents goes to zero within 20 years after reaching
adulthood and there is never any benefit to having gandparents.

~~~
nkoren
You severely underestimate the value of having grandparents. In traditional
societies, children are raised by grandparents and great-grandparents at least
as often as by parents.

The reason is simple: hunting and gathering is extraordinarily difficult when
you've got a baby on your knee. If you reproduce at 20 and now you have to
take care of a baby, then the people who are in _peak_ hunting-and-gathering
condition are suddenly unable to find food. Solution: leave the baby with the
40-year-old grandparents, and go off to hunt/gather.

Problem is, a lot of 40-year-olds are still in pretty good hunting-and-
gathering condition, and won't be maximising the group's survival by sitting
on their duffs doing baby-guarding duty. The solution: leave the baby with the
60-year-old great-grandparents, and go off to hunt/gather.

This isn't conjectural: this is how traditional societies actually work.

Now, the 60-year-olds definitely _aren 't_ in particularly great
hunting/gathering condition, so taking care of children is a good way they can
contribute to group survival. The children can grow up and become self-
sufficient under their tutelage. There's little evolutionary need another
generation beyond them, so you'd expect mortality to increase rapidly after
60. Which of course is exactly what we see.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
_> There's little evolutionary need another generation beyond them, so you'd
expect mortality to increase rapidly after 60_

That's exactly my point. Hunter-gatherer diet didn't need to work very well
against cancer, heart disease or Alzheimer's and hence we shouldn't expect it
to promote what we consider longevity today.

But I think you're overestimating the value of grandparents for breast feeding
toddlers. Population growth wasn't very rapid back then because most kids died
at birth or very soon after. So there weren't actually that many kids around I
think.

------
AndrewKemendo
It's always amazing how much hate exercise gets on the internet. The majority
of the comments on here are - well this or that should count as exercise not
actually having to go and do some specific "exercise" training.

As someone who did not used to like to exercise and now do I think it's just a
whole wad of cognitive dissonance for people who largely are out of shape (by
the way that /= fat) and don't want to feel like they should spend time doing
specific body improving exercises.

~~~
beachstartup
it's the same mental rut as people stuck in a terrible dead-end job, or in
abusive / shitty relationships. this is not a value judgment on what type of
job/relationship is good; these people are suffering. some are highly paid, or
have the outward appearances of a good relationship.

they have self-imposed a set of beliefs, a system of beliefs built up through
unfortunate circumstances that have no bearing on wider reality, that limit
their ability to improve their circumstances. it becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy.

their mind will do all sorts of logical gymnastics to avoid admitting the
truth or taking action. you can see it in this thread. people just make things
up out of thin air, convinced of their truth. i was tempted to reply to a
couple but then i saw your comment.

it's like living in the matrix or something. it's so hard to explain because
smart people can fall for it too. to this day, i find myself slipping into
these self-defeating thought cycles every once in a while. maybe it's some
kind of stockholm syndrome.

~~~
pjc50
Victim-blaming AND false consciousness! Great way of disclaiming any
responsibility for helping anyone in that situation.

~~~
beachstartup
> disclaiming any responsibility

it's not my responsibility to offer to help strangers unsolicited. in fact,
it's kind of rude.

------
xacto75
I've never enjoyed exercise. As a young child I would feel horrible after
physical exertion. For years I heard things like: grow up, grow a pair, get
used to it, you just need to toughen up, and so on.

In my early teen years I ran long distance track but never felt well during or
after a meet. I had to stop.

Fast forward to my late 30s and I get diagnosed with hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy (obstructive) [1]. It's genetic (I've been tested). At this
point, even mild exercise over a period of time (a week or so) leads to
congestive heart failure (CHF). I have little doubt I was suffering from
lighter symptoms as far back as childhood.

There are some people who cannot exercise. I so want to do something to help
ease stress. For me, however, exercise == stress. If I lifted weights two days
a week and ran for three, I'd end up in the hospital. As it is, I can walk a
few times a week for about 30 minutes.

There are zebras in the world. People should be careful about taking advice
from discussion boards. See your doctor before starting any serious exercise
program.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy)

------
undoware
This is why I always jog with a cigarette.

~~~
jbuzbee
No joke - One of my friends was amazed the day he was at another friend's
house and noticed that she had one of those great-big ashtrays attached to her
treadmill to allow walking and smoking at the same time...

------
OscarCunningham
Note that the fact "Lack of exercise kills roughly as many as smoking" says
almost nothing about the danger of smoking compared to lack of exercise,
unless you happen to know the rates of each.

~~~
dllthomas
But it does say some about where we should be focusing our marginal effort in
terms of encouraging/discouraging behaviors for optimal public health. How
much of a difference we can _make_ in each is the other piece missing, but
that would involve looking at specific proposed interventions.

------
hownottowrite
From 2012... Here's the referenced article from The Lancet

[http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(12\)60898-8/abstract)

------
vezzy-fnord
_Half an hour of brisk walking five times a week would do the trick._

Good to know I'm satisfying the bare minimum for not dying.

~~~
TillE
That lines up pretty well with the recommendation of 7,000 steps per day:

[http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/tips-for-
getting...](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/tips-for-getting-
exercise-into-your-life/)

Fitbit's default goal of 10,000 seems to work well, and I walk very fast
everywhere as long as there's not ice on the ground.

------
revelation
In this thread, a large majority falls to realize that diet has little to do
with exercise. As in, no diet can fix your sedentary car commute desk job
health problems.

The obsession with diet seems to be rooted in a desire to avoid exercise. I'd
wish people would get a grip because the paleo and other nonsense is a
breeding ground for the kind of blatant ignorance from which anti-vaccine and
homeopathy hails.

------
pjc50
Oh great, now not exercising in bars is going to be banned :(

------
jfoster
I got a Fitbit in January. I log all of the food I eat in the app and it
(roughly) calculates how many calories I'm burning through walking or running,
plus the passively burnt calories. It's now clear to me why people not
measuring tend not to be able to lose weight. They simply underestimate how
much they need to exercise, and overestimate how much they can eat. It's an
easy trap to fall into. I've had days where eating one thing too many would
blow my calorie budget unless I went for a half hour walk to compensate for
it.

------
hobs
All I thought was, that's all? I would have expected lack of exercise killed
many more.

------
RankingMember
Another article to forward bosses with purchase orders for treadmill desks
attached. :)

------
zw123456
Another aspect to exercise is the mental health aspect. I find that 60 minutes
of cardiovascular activity clears my mind and I often come up with
inspirations to a problem I am working on after working out. I think regular
exercise helps maintain mental acuity and balance.

~~~
dllthomas
My understanding is that this is pretty well supported by studies, too -
regular exercise leads to improved mental function.

------
kolev
I don't exercise as I yet have to see data showing me that exercise will
increase lifespan by longer than the time invested doing it. Add the
opportunity cost of the lost time to the picture as well. Same with sleep. A
couple of hours less sleep is a pretty significant increase in real and
meaningful lifespan. Will sleeping 8 hours increase your lifespan by a bigger
percentage? No, not really. What I definitely think is stupid is overeating
and then running to the gym to "burn" the excess calories. First, exercise
makes you hungry. Second, are you aware of the vomitories in the Roman Empire
- this isn't much different. Every expert will tell you that nutrition is more
important than exercise. To me, studies about exercise are low quality as
people who work out usually watch what they eat as well. Also, it could be the
lower abdominal circumference of those who work out, which is a good health
predictor. Anyway, I think walking 20-30 mins a day and having sex is what is
natural to us. Anything else leads to tear and wear (especially, cartilage),
increased metabolism, and aerobic exercise is a significant source of reactive
oxygen species, so, you really need to load up on antioxidants _before_ such
workout. The slower your metabolism is, the longer you will potentially live
(extend odds of getting cancer, hitting the Hayflick limit later, etc.).
Intermittent fasting as a caloric restriction regimen seems to be the best
option of life extension, which means, two meals a day, even better with one
(Warrior Diet). Not having to worry about snacks and eating so often also
extends your meaningful lifespan. I'm sure some gym nazis will downvote me,
but whatever - I've invested enough time researching different alternatives of
having longer and happier life and I know what's best. The only thing I know I
should be doing better is stretching. I highly recommend The Longevity Project
book - it debunks a lot of myths. Good Calories, Bad Calories is also great
although it has a lot of enemies especially in the face of vegetarians and
vegans. I believe in it's main point as I've increased my caloric intake by
hundreds of calories a day, but my weight has actually decreased. I'm not
saying all that Taubes says is right, but if there's one thing I got from the
book is the realization that human metabolism is oversimplified, it really is
not a simple arithmetic formula with just addition and subtraction. Hormones,
for example, are very important, and you can talk to people with thyroid
disease (hypo or hyper function) to hear how eating less can make you gain
weight and how eating more can still make you lose weight. Due to
environmental toxins (including those in foods such as endocrine disruptors,
antibiotics, etc.), things are getting more and more complicated. Add the fact
that our gut microbiota is totally out of whack and things get ugly.

~~~
monkeyspaw
> I don't exercise as I yet have to see data showing me that exercise will
> increase lifespan by longer than the time invested doing it. Add the
> opportunity cost of the lost time to the picture as well

That's double counting. If exercise time gets you the same increased lifespan
as time invested doing it, then the "time" factor cancels. So there is no
opportunity cost -- you get more life for "spending" life.

> Second, are you aware of the vomitories in the Roman Empire

Not a real thing, other than the architectural term. Nothing to do with
regurgitation.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium)

While your personal mileage may vary, I find my quality of life immensely
increased with regular exercise.

Science supports it -- exercise helps mood, life quality of insomniacs,
increase happiness, reduce anxiety, and many other positive qualities.
([http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/exercise-
happiness.htm](http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/exercise-happiness.htm)
has links to all these studies.)

I encourage you to do as you wish with your life. I, however, will continue to
put my time in. Preferably in high intensity cardio exercise 2-3x/wk, and 1-2
strength training sessions per week.

FWIW, the "life extension foundation" seems to support exercise.
[http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag96/feb96-fitness.htm](http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag96/feb96-fitness.htm)

~~~
kolev
To me exercise in the gym is wasted time, not productive time, and that's why
my logic isn't flawed. If I have a better use of my time, but hit the gym for
some expected benefit, then it's not the best use of my time. Some people may
need exercise to feel good while others (like me), don't. If you rely on
exercise for your mood (thanks to the endorphins release), then you're
becoming dependent on it and it becomes an addiction. I personally fall asleep
in less than 2 minutes. I forgot to mention that team sports is a different
thing. I always enjoy playing soccer with my friends and children.

Regarding "exercise", if you ask Dr. Weil, walking 20-30 minutes or doing
garden work is the best exercise - that's what the Okinawans or the Sardinians
do. I think a walk is good enough to stabilize your blood sugar after a meal
(even just 10 minutes of walk do miracles) and allow you lymph to flow.

Exercise also increases IGF-1, which is without much doubt negative for
longevity: [http://blog.wellnessfx.com/2013/09/04/igf-1-trade-
performanc...](http://blog.wellnessfx.com/2013/09/04/igf-1-trade-performance-
vs-longevity/)

Also, higher muscle mass means increased basal metabolic rate, which affects
the lifespan potential negatively.

------
sliverstorm
Progress & a victory for the anit-smoking campaigns, in a sense. Just think
how many people smoking was killing before it was demonized.

------
raverbashing
I find these kind of news worrying, but for the wrong reasons.

This is more about pushing an agenda, maybe increasing health insurance
premiums and blaming people.

Rate of death is still 100% for humans, regardless of what you do.

Sure, maybe it's healthier to work standing or I don't know, but the end
result is the same.

Not to mention health problems caused by exercise itself. Or even worse,
weekend exercisers that go and overexert themselves then causing a heart
attack.

~~~
sz4kerto
Cognitive dissonance?

>Not to mention health problems caused by exercise itself. Or even worse,
weekend exercisers that go and overexert themselves then causing a heart
attack.

Well, it's extremely rare that people get heart attack because of excercise.
It happens, but it's really rare. It's so rare that we can safely say:
excercise is good for your health, and not having any excercise is bad,
period. You can screw it up by not doing it right, however, overdoing it is
almost impossible -- given you do it right. Running too much, for example, is
almost impossible, if you get over the initial period of losing excess weight,
and you drink and eat enough, etc.

~~~
codelap
It's not very common, but it also isn't nearly as rare as you're making it
sound. I'll look for the study, but IIRC, if you're over 50, and you
vigorously exercise more than 2 hours a week, your chance of a heart attack is
actually greater than if you vigorously exercise only a couple minutes a week.
And I think it's around 1 in 15k. Which although not common, is far from
almost impossible.

~~~
Retric
Did you find a link to that study? 2 hours of vigorous exercise a week can
still represent a vary sedentary lifestyle.

I would in no way be surprised that people who are over 50, overweight, and
start a strenuous exercise program as if they where still in there 20's had a
significant risk of heart attack. On the other had if there only looking at
healthy people with long term exercise programs that's another issue entirely.

~~~
kbutler
[http://running.competitor.com/2012/06/news/how-much-
running-...](http://running.competitor.com/2012/06/news/how-much-running-is-
bad-for-your-heart_54331)

"Repeated extreme exercise or long-distance racing can cause a buildup of scar
tissue on the heart, which can lead to the development of patchy myocardial
fibrosis in up to 12% of marathon runners. The effects of “chronic exercise”
can also include premature aging of the heart, stiffening of the heart
muscles, and an increase in arrhythmias and atrial fibrillation."

"A 15-year observational study of 52,000 adults found that the highest degree
of survival and health was found from running less than 20 miles per week, in
runs of 30 to 45 minutes over three or four days, at about an 8:30 to 10:00
pace. The benefits decrease at amounts greater than that."

"Originally, it appeared the race-related damage was less severe in people who
trained over 45 miles per week, but O’Keefe says that doesn’t prove to always
be true."

As with most things, it appears that exercise is neither a panacea nor an
unqualified good thing, but no doubt under-exercise is more prevalent than
over-exercise...

~~~
irremediable
That's really quite extreme over-exercise, though. If you don't train for a
marathon, but rather go jogging a few times a week, you'll be fine.

~~~
woofyman
I'm 54. I walk 8-10 miles every morning and lift weights 2 times a week for an
hour. I use to have high blood pressure and the only (I tried them all) drug
that worked for me was causing abnormal gum growth. So getting off the drug
was my primary motivation. I'm 6'2" and now a lean 180 pounds.

~~~
irremediable
That's awesome. I'm not saying that older people can't do that much exercise,
just pointing out that it's worth starting slow. I entirely agree with you
that exercise is good, and that's why I left the reply I did: I was arguing
that exercise is almost always a good recommendation.

------
pyrrhotech
Cue those mythical 80 hour a week workers...

------
gdiocarez
Well, smoking or not. You will die anyway.

------
banachtarski
Missing (2012) tag

------
aaron695
I call BS.

My understanding is exercise is not that healthy from a physical stand point.
(Mental health perhaps)

Continuous long term light strain is what I thought was beneficial. i.e. stand
up desk, gardening etc

This PRed article seems to just be taking exercise as a given the
extrapolating from there rather than looking at the issue itself.

