
Acute exercise increases expression of telomere protective genes in heart tissue - mhb
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28166612
======
carbocation
It is hard for me to understand why a mouse study in a low-impact journal is
at the top of HN.

The article does not appropriately adjust for multiple testing, and therefore
none of its claims are well supported except the JNK2 decrease in post-
exercise mice.

Full article is available at
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1113/EP086189/asset/...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1113/EP086189/asset/eph12060.pdf?v=1&t=izh254dq&s=b9991ef92571e89cf3782940965238a12904dd93)

~~~
droopyEyelids
Looking at this article, and the one about the supposed use of falcons as
anti-drone measures, makes me think about the whole "fake news" thing.

Something about how this is the quality of material we choose to promote among
ourselves, the need for a critical eye when analyzing news, and how spreading
fake stuff must be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Not the most joyful thoughts to start a morning!

~~~
cbgb
For the record, I just read about the use of eagles (not falcons, though they
are kept at falconries in France) in combating drones in a daily newsletter I
highly respect. Here is the article they cite:
[http://en.rfi.fr/wire/20170220-born-killers-french-army-
groo...](http://en.rfi.fr/wire/20170220-born-killers-french-army-grooms-
eagles-down-
drones?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2ASituation%20Report)

I guess I don't understand how at least the anti-drone eagles can be
considered "fake news."

~~~
OldSchoolJohnny
Do you honestly think a bird is a good solution to deal with what is, to the
bird, a whirling blade flying death machine? I also saw people pushing the
story about millions of wind powered devices to freeze the arctic, it's just
impractical nonsense on the face of it.

~~~
Tenhundfeld
I think you're using an older definition, wherein "fake news" means unworthy
of attention. In recent weeks and months, "fake news" has been used by
President Trump and others to mean factually incorrect.

Something being a bad idea or stupid or impractical doesn't make it factually
incorrect, i.e., does not make it fake news under the new definition.

The article asserts several facts, among them:

\- birds of prey are often already kept near airports to scare birds away from
the runway to reduce accidents during takeoff and landing.

\- the French air force has an experiment running with 4 eagles to train them
to attack small drones, in addition to their normal scarebird duties.

\- the French air force thinks the experiment is promising enough to order a
second group of 4 eagles.

If those facts are correct, it is not "fake news." It is a silly puff piece
about something that is not important, because it will almost certainly never
turn into anything beyond an experiment.

~~~
lstroud
Simply, current definition "fake news" == propaganda

------
CodeCube
The pithy response is of course, "Exercise improves health. In other news,
water is wet". But of course that's too simplistic ... this kind of research
is awesome. Anything that can help us understand these mechanisms are one step
closer to a literal fountain of youth.

~~~
harveywi
> one step closer to a literal fountain of youth

I think you mean "Literally one step closer to a metaphorical fountain of
youth." Or, in other words, the literal journey is literally the reward.

~~~
castis
If, via this research (and heaps of handwaving), we can invent a water
fountain that dispenses something that make you live longer. Then we have
invented a literal fountain of youth.

~~~
anigbrowl
Too complicated. Why not just hurl young people out of tubes on an ongoing
basis? True, some passers-by will suffer fatal injuries from the impact of
juvenile bodies, but literary fountains of youth have always had the
possibility of unexpectedly killing off people who drink from them too often,
so their unexpected deaths will be ironically satisfying. I can think of worse
ways to go.

------
serg_chernata
For anyone interested, a friendly plug for Dr Rhonda Patrick[1], who podcasts
and speaks on nutrition, exercise, aging and telomeres in particular.

1\. [https://www.foundmyfitness.com/](https://www.foundmyfitness.com/)

~~~
literallycancer
Something about the design of that site makes me immediately suspicious and
less likely to listen to anything she has to say.

~~~
timdorr
I tend to stick to her YouTube channel, podcasts, and Twitter feed. You're
right, her website is not doing her any favors. But she's a biologist, not a
web developer. Hence, going directly to her content sources seems to be the
best option.

~~~
literallycancer
I assumed someone else is handling her website stuff, so that just means they
should try not to make it look like a scam site (subscribe popups on entry,
and colorized "cancer" and other keywords). But maybe it's just targeted at
different demographics, I don't know.

------
giardini
For those who cannot get beyond "mouse", here's an article and references
about a human study:

"Lifestyle Changes Lengthen Telomeres"
[http://www.drmirkin.com/public/ezine092913.html](http://www.drmirkin.com/public/ezine092913.html)

The study, by Dr. Dean Ornish, was published in "The Lancet Oncology" 17
September 2013 issue.

------
wslh
How much exercise this should be in humans?

~~~
JshWright
This study is looking at one specific mechanism by which exercise may be
helpful in improving some aspect of your health. It's not especially useful to
look at just this study though, as it doesn't actually link to any outcomes
(the telomere protective expression may or may not actually reduce your risk
for cardiovascular disease).

It's more useful to look at studies that have looked at actual outcomes (e.g.
reducing the incidence of heart attack or stroke, etc). In those cases, the
bulk of the evidence points to 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week of moderate
exercise (e.g. a brisk walk or jog) being the best 'bang for your buck'. There
are certainly gains to be made by going beyond that, but the curve falls off
pretty sharply, and you can get almost all the (proven) benefits of exercise
at that level.

EDIT: I would suggest this YouTube video from Healthcare Triage on the
benefits of exercise that are supported by good research:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFBBjynBpSw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFBBjynBpSw)

~~~
Insanity
Do you happen to know if the crucial thing here is "regular" excercise? As in,
is it in important to spread out the excercise over the 5 days?

Would doing the 2h30 min excercise over say, 2 or 3 days per week, amount to
the same benefit?

~~~
rickycook
from what i understand (not being in any way a professional in any related
field), its best to even split it up during the day. 15min early, 15min late
is better than 30min in a block?

so i'd assume that short times more often is better

~~~
dpark
> _so i 'd assume that short times more often is better_

I wouldn't assume this. The logical end of this is to split your exercise into
many tiny bursts throughout the day. But it's likely that _sustained_ output
is an important part of exercising. The shorter your exercise, the less likely
you are to get your heart into an elevated range, the less likely you are to
cause an oxygen-depleted state (which encourages vascular growth), the less
likely you are to use a significant portion of your free glucose (which is
important for insulin sensitivity), etc.

I don't know where the threshold is, but it seems like a bad idea to assume
that shorter, more often is better. It likewise seems like a bad idea to
assume that longer blocks are better (or just as good). Any exercise is far
better than none, but there is a lot of support for ~30 minutes ~daily being
extremely valuable. Absent evidence, I'd be hesitant to assume that some other
arbitrary division of exercise would yield the same results.

~~~
darkerside
> the less likely you are to cause an oxygen-depleted state

I don't know if this is a safe assumption either. What makes you think it
would take more than a few minutes of acute exercise to reach an oxygen
depleted state?

~~~
dpark
Basic physics. Assuming you are generally healthy, your body is not _usually_
in an oxygen-depleted state. Therefore it will take some amount of time in a
state of increased oxygen use to cause oxygen depletion. Therefore, "the
shorter your exercise, ... the less likely you are to cause an oxygen-depleted
state".

Depending on your fitness level and exercise level, it will take more or less
time to put you into this state. An overweight, sedentary person sprinting
will be there pretty much instantly. A marathon runner walking briskly won't
get there in any amount of time. But all things being equal, more time
exercising will be more likely to put you into an oxygen-depleted state (and
glucose depleted state, and elevated heart rate).

~~~
darkerside
For endurance athletes like your marathon runner, this is certainly the case.
Strength and power athletes can certainly expend far more energy in a shorter
time than someone who is less fit. It's a bit of a paradox where the better
shape you are in, the sooner you can tire yourself out. From everything I've
read, it certainly seems possible to reach oxygen depletion in a very short
period of time.

[https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/04/27/1-minute-
of...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well/2016/04/27/1-minute-of-all-out-
exercise-may-equal-45-minutes-of-moderate-exertion/?referer=)

------
Nomentatus
I've assumed for a very long time that the purpose of telomeres was to prevent
cancer mutations from killing a complex organism, since the resulting growth
would be limited to X generations where X is the number of telomeres on the
mutated strand of DNA, and then die without those cells being able to divide
again.

So while I believe the study will likely hold up; I do wonder why exercise
adds telomeres. One answer is that exercise reduces cancer risk (it will get
you to bed on time, mostly) so the body optimistically adds teleomeres.
Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, exercise may trigger more cell
division (for purposes of repair, all exercise causes some damage, to collagen
if nothing else) so the extra telomeres are added as compensation in order to
return to status quo cap on allowed cell divisions; maintaining the
preventative but not actually extending it.

------
nottorp
Out of pure curiosity, what does this mean in english?

~~~
timdorr
Exercise is good for you.

More specifically, intense exercise seems to protect the length of the heart's
telomeres, which are the ends of your DNA strands and shorten as you get
older. They are linked to the effects of aging, so delaying their shortening
would seem to indicate delaying the effects of aging.

~~~
mangodrunk
What does "acute exercise" mean?

------
StClaire
How would we check these results in humans? Can we safely biopsy someone's
heart?

~~~
forgotpwagain
biopsies of the heart can be done, but only for compelling reasons. it carries
non-trivial risk to the individual.

untilHellbanned described the better way -- ideally, there would be some sort
of biomarker in the blood that serves as a proxy for the level in the heart.
But how do you find it and validate it? It's challenging (at best...)

~~~
gozur88
I would think for research purposes autopsies would give you better data than
biopsies, and without any risk.

------
jondiggsit
TLDR; exercise

------
DaveSchmindel
In other news, smoking is bad for your lungs!

