
The closest thing to a wonder drug is exercise - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/upshot/why-you-should-exercise-no-not-to-lose-weight.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=MostViewed&version=Full&src=mv&WT.nav=MostViewed
======
whack
I particularly found the following section in the article very compelling.

 _" 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.

~~~
ellyagg
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.

~~~
maxxxxx
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.

~~~
gadders
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](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/3/475.full.pdf)

~~~
maxxxxx
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.

------
beamatronic
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.

~~~
waterphone
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.

~~~
dpark
Depending on the type and location of the fracture, mobility can aid in
healing.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
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.

------
ef4
> 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.

------
drzaiusapelord
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%2900458-1)

~~~
waterphone
Just exercise. People are so lazy in that regard it baffles me.

~~~
marssaxman
What's to be baffled about? Exercise is tiring, time-consuming, and sometimes
painful. People generally avoid such activities, absent any overriding
motivation.

~~~
alistairSH
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.

~~~
joshyeager
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.

~~~
xyience
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.

------
nibs
Move more, eat mostly vegetables, sleep enough.

~~~
ryanobjc
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.

~~~
Retric
For the most part good food costs less than crap food as long as you cook.

~~~
tracker1
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.

~~~
Retric
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.

~~~
drewrv
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.

~~~
Retric
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.

------
akeck
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.

------
moultano
"23 and 1/2 hours: What is the single best thing we can do for our health"
[https://youtu.be/aUaInS6HIGo](https://youtu.be/aUaInS6HIGo)

~~~
hackaflocka
I skimmed the video and couldn't figure it out -- what is it please?

~~~
dpark
Exercise. 30 minutes a day. Mild intensity (e.g. walking).

------
sandworm101
No. Youth is the real wonder drug. Exercise is a fallback once that stops
being effective.

~~~
superplussed
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.

~~~
sandworm101
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.

~~~
JTon
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.

~~~
sandworm101
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.

~~~
JTon
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.

------
cm2012
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](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](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/](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-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-
trap.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)) 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/](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.

~~~
ontoillogical
Your link to the NYTimes article at
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-
pope-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-fat-
trap.html) is cut off.

I think it's because HN does auto-link shortening and you copy and pasted a
previous comment?

~~~
cm2012
Thanks! Corrected.

------
hugh4life
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).

~~~
tetraodonpuffer
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

~~~
hugh4life
", 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.

~~~
dsq
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.

