One person sees sick people sitting and concludes that they are sitting because they're sick. Another person concludes that they're sick because they're sitting.
We need better-quality studies to really determine if sitting makes people sick.
This. A thousand times this. I ask because as a programmer I spend roughly 10-12 hours sitting at work and roughly 3 hours at home, with maybe an hour of walking each day, and I would like to know if I am prone to aging and being sick more due to my sitting habit or its just wrong interpretation of data and there is no significant correlation.
I sit/stand about 50/50 (30 minutes before switching), I use a panel timer (xfce) to remind me to switch and it works great.
(I suspect that the real issue is neither sitting nor standing, but monotonicity.)
Found via https://blog.fitbit.com/sitting-hurts-fitbit-data-suggests-y...
London transport workers study -- coronary heart disease and physical activity of work: http://www.epi.umn.edu/cvdepi/study-synopsis/london-transpor...
An unhealthy person might think, "Ugh, I'd have to be on my feet all day." And a healthy person may not see that as a major negative.
For something measuring physical activity they won't have participants that are mobility limited. They will only use people who are able to be active. Practically all medical studies put participants through an exam before accepting them to ensure they don't have conditions that would skew the results.
This study "assessed the association of sedentary time with leukocyte telomere length (LTL)"  - that's it.
Investigating causal relationships would be another study.
You're right about alternate interpretations/speculation, though.
I didn't read the original study, so I don't know if it drew unwarranted conclusions about causality, but the Science Bulletin article certainly implied them.
I am looking into the no equipment, no gym style workouts that take 20 minutes.
The other book lists 100 exercises with no equipment.
I am starting out slow trying to put together a coherent workout from these two.
From the linked website:
> Recognize that all these guys have low body fat, which helps reveal their muscles. You will not actually lose fat by lifting weights, so weight loss is a separate goal altogether.
This is both true and not true. If you increase muscle mass, you increase your metabolism, which means your resting metabolic rate increases. However, as they say, abs are made in the kitchen, and a better diet is the quickest, most efficient way to drop fat. But, why not both? The easiest way to drop weight is to stop eating bread and sugar (including beer, i.e. liquid bread). Plus, there are dozens of other benefits to dropping grains and sugar.
Yes, but not as much as people think . It's about 5 kcals per lb. of muscle (compared to roughly 1 for fat). Your organs consume the vast majority of your calories. An extremely fit person can expect to burn maybe 50-100 kcals more a day than a fat one per pound. It's not nothing, but if you read men's magazines they make it sound like if you lift some weights, you can eat whatever you want.
This isn't to say there are not many good reasons to strength train, especially as you age. I just wish people weren't trying to sell benefits that didn't exist when there are so many that do exist.
EDIT: I shouldn't say "50-100 per pound", I should say that a fit person can expect to burn 50-100 more than a fat person of the same weight, within a normal weight range.
Bonus, keto is kind of a brain booster too. Not dissimilar in effect from fasting except sustainable.
Of course you can lose fat by lifting weights. Calories in < calories out = weight loss (hopefully fat). Any type of physical activity increases calories out.
For most people, weight loss is first and foremost a calories in problem.
The body digests calories different depending on the source, e.g. eating an orange vs drinking orange juice. Going to the gym for an hour might burn a few hundred calories, which is about a snickers bar. These two combined means that adding the calories of your food vs the calories at the gym is a really bad way to lose weight.
Of course, I'm not a doctor and have no sources to back this up, other than reading the China Study 10 years ago. :)
Nope. When calories in < calories out the body responds by reducing energy expenditure, not consuming the excess:
> Any type of physical activity increases calories out.
This may be true but that doesn't mean that physical activity has a measurable effect on weight loss:
If your muscles take weeks to recover you should see a doctor. That could be rhabdo or some other condition. It should never take that long.
Are you talking about normal recovery after weightlifting? The OP was talking about muscle strains.
I've hurt muscles that then take a month to recover. It seems fundamentally different from tired muscles after a workout.
But the problem is that you can't lift weights without consuming sufficient calories (in a sustainable way).
Not necessarily, but the alternative is fat loss with greater muscle gain (b/c muscle has lower stored energy content per pound.)
Then I developed pain in both knees, worse on the left knee. I figured that it was because of too much sitting, so I got a standing desk. In about a month, knee pains gone, completely.
Never even bothered to go see a doctor.
After standing for too long, I started having pains in my lower back. Solution? I got a bar stool, so I now alternate between standing and sitting.
What I learnt is that our body's joints (knee, elbow, waist, ankle, etc) were not designed to remain in one position for too long. Movement lubricates them.
To avoid stiffening up, I play music (usually progressive house or something similarly rhythmic-but-not-too-distracting) into noise-cancelling headphones and let the music move me. Because I'm not standing still, I don't experience lower back pain, stiffness, soreness or anything else.
If I had to go back to sitting now, it would kill me.
 NB I wrenched my back last autumn by twisting in a funny way while painting a ceiling with a roller on an extension pole. After a couple of weeks of Advil and an aggressive regimen of back exercises and stretches, my back pain was completely gone and I feel better than ever.
I've been doing the standing desk for about 4 years now. I just bodged something together for my setup, but I'm thinking about investing in a VariDesk system instead. When I sit, I'll probably use an exercise ball instead of a chair.
I do not mind living a decade shorter than those ones who are more active than me.
I have tried to be active, but could not fit it into my mentality. Note that I did not say my lifestyle, I said my mentality. I am unable to be active. I was not an active person a a kid, and I am not one as an adult.
If I aggregate all those activity hours together with all the stress about being more active (including following the effectiveness of standing desk news), it could maybe worth a couple of years of my life. I subtracted those years from that one decade, and decided that I am ok with not having that part of my life.
I continue programming 14 hours a day in the sitting style.
This is a fixed mindset vs a growth mindset; that itself is the over-arching lifestyle choice you are making.
Getting in shape is painful, but after 6-8 weeks of a routine, your body adapts and it becomes much easier, even enjoyable to some people. In 2 months, you could have the data to know what your body is actually capable of.
> If I aggregate all those activity hours together.. it could maybe worth a couple of years of my life.
Do you really believe that? Would you tell this to a doctor, or teach this to a child?
I'm no expert, but a few reasons why its very unlikely a linear model applies here:
1) You increase risk of a life-ending event like a heart attack.
2) You are not combatting the effects of stress, which is suspected to be highly related to the feeling of time passing faster as we age.
3) Particularly as you age, your cognitive ability will decline relative to your potential. You'll be a worse programmer than you could be at 40+ - memory, psychomotor speed and executive function in particular will decline vs potential. Simultaneously you will be more likely to get dementia.
I think if you factor these things in your expected years, and expected quality years, of life would change significantly from your estimate. Further, there are plenty of ways to exercise that people consider to be an inherently good use of their time for a variety of reasons.
My Aunt is 95 and still runs 5k every day. Guess who isn't an invalid in her autumn years?
Or a host of other diseases for which exercise is an often recommended preventative measure.
So what if she has the genes? You have no information indicating whether or not her active lifestyle added 1 year or ten or twenty or zero. We do know that the research shows a causal relationship between activity level and longevity.
Not the longevity that gets you to 100. The stats on centennials shows it's genetics. - see the Forbes article covering the people studying it.
Show me even one study that says reaching 100 is 100% due to genetics and no amount of dietary or lifestyle changes contribute in any way.
Some other improvements (possibly attributed to placebo?) are really hard to put in words, but it feels like my body and mind just crave for energy release.
e.g. many thinkers enjoy thinking on slow walks, especially through a park, countryside or bush/woods.
This is a very important point. What we do in youth affects how naturally we can do certain activities.
The only thing I'd suggest is not artificially limiting what "active" is. For instance, some people think it means jogging and lots of sweat.
Whereas my exercise is mostly periodic walks, looking at things and thinking, and then barbell exercise. The barbells are a significant mental puzzle as you work on the form and try to recruit muscles to apply more force to a bar moving in an efficient path off the ground.
My dad enjoys golf, which is mostly walking, and plotting how to get a ball to another point.
Some people enjoy bouldering, which mostly involves strategic thinking in terms of how to move across a course on a wall.
And there's many more things that care "active". Others in their replies have emphasized that your later years will involve premature cognitive and health decline, long before you die, if you're sedentary. And they're correct.
But telling you that alone won't change anything. So what I'm adding is to consider that their might be some activity that will help keep your body and mind in shape AND that you enjoy. Finding one might involve talking with a good athletic therapist, or just googling – but I expect there is something.
This won't alter your lifestyle, and it may bring many health benefits with minimal effort. Plus you will experience mental benefits towards those long coding sessions.
I'm not a physician at all, but this sounds similar to a friend who was finally diagnosed with thyroid hypofunction. She now gets hormone pills and is way more energetic. Do you also have low blood pressure? Can't stay up without two coffees in the morning?
I know you probably can't do one, I've been there. Do a sissy pushup on your knees, until you can do more.
if you're stuck on a problem, the brain rush will feel good afterwards.
But aerobic exercise might make you a better programmer:
A decade ago, I could do the same. Now I wish I hadn't because my back and shoulders are so messed up.
Interestingly (maybe), I usually find standing less painful than sitting these days.
Coffee is bad for you, wait coffee is good for you.
Vitamins are good for you, no wait vitamins are bad for you.
Being fat is bad, no, really being fat is actually perfectly fine.
No one can make up their mind so I stopped paying attention a long time ago.
That's from Astroturfing by <_INSERT_INDUSTRY_LOBBY_NAME_HERE_>
Every time a real study with facts comes out saying X_____ is bad for you, the Corporations and Special Interest Lobbyists working on behalf of X____ will astroturf the media with "No really, X____ is good for you"
X_____ = Coffee, Diary, Wine, Eggs, Wheat, Soy, Stevia, ..... you get the idea.
Required Viewing: Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDx => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
Exercise is very well associated with better immune function. So not a surprising result beyond the fact that they actually managed to get a result at all, as telomere length measured this way is actually a pretty terrible metric of aging. The correlations with aging only show up in large populations, and even there you'll find as many failures to identify associations as successes in the literature. For an individual knowing your immune cell telomere length won't tell you a great deal that you don't already know, and nor will changes over time. The numbers will be all over the map, and won't compare usefully at all with other individuals in your circumstances, unless you have a few thousand of them to compare with.
If you want a decent biomarker that might actually prove to be actionable, DNA methylation patterns after the model pioneered by Horvath et al look fairly promising. (There's even a Florida company offering an implementation as a service these days).
The sitting question is generating a lot of ink in the research community. All sorts of large epidemiological studies have tackled the topic. I think it remains unsettled as to whether it is the sitting or whether it is the inactivity: decent arguments from data could be made either way. If pulling in data from the broader context, however, the inactivity looks more compelling. Accelerometer studies are becoming more common since the miniaturization and cost reduction that came with cell phones, and these are showing that even very low levels of exercise appear to make noticeable differences to outcomes in later life - at the level of housework and puttering around the garden.
When I was younger, up until the end of high school, I used to do sports, but since I got to college, I simply stopped caring. My body is skinny, really skinny, I weight 61kg, and I had that weight for last 7 years. But one day I thought maybe I should do something, not for the looks, but for the feel of my body, and physical body exhaustion just feels healthy sometimes.
So I thought running might be what I am looking for. Any advice on that? I am sure someone is doing it so (with lower body weight), any advice or thought on that? Btw when it's not winter, I skate, especially in summer, I use to skate all night, for 5-6 hours.
You squat every workout which I find amazing. The first time I tried jumping to reach something high up after doing the program for 6 months, I almost lost my balance in the air because I wasn't expecting to go that high! It really builds up your base stats and then you can switch over to any program you like or keep building strength.
There are some apps that calculate weights for you and show you what you need to do each session, I use https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vandersw.w...
I should probably apply the same process as I have with frontend web frameworks... just pick one and roll with it, it will "workout" in the end.
Also, speaking from personal experience, "fitness" wise (and aesthetics as well) what works best for most ppl is mid-high rep type routine with plenty of bodyweight exercises thrown into the mix (esp pull ups and dips) + some cardio along the lines of the Jailhouse Strong program.
To [slightly] contradict myself :) - what PL-type routines do have going for them is measurable goals + constant progression.
Pretty solid program to get started running.
After that, I'd suggest doing Bridge to 10K 
Surprisingly to me at the time, Bridge to 10K was way easier
BUT increase your speed very carefully, or you will hurt your knees possibly giving yourself a semi-permanent (recurring) injury or worse. Beyond a certain point injury rates shoot up with speed a lot more than any health benefits do, more so than with distance as it is easy to let your form slip when concentrating on speed, and in my experience the only advantages in doing 10K in 42 minutes instead of, say, 60 are bragging rights and getting finished & to the shower/pub/other faster afterwards!
Also note that those studies (well, the ones I've seen) compared like for like too (same pace over the distance, studying flat(ish) road racing or treadmill running. I find 16-to-20K trail running with a group (sometimes more of a "fast trek" than a run depending on terrain!) to work out much better for me than 10K road running at full pace.
I was doing weight lifting and ended up developing really bad RSI. Most likely from a combination of a few things including excessive computer use. I stopped, and after that started running, not particularly successfully. That was on and off but not very successful.
Some things I did were good, others weren't. My hips started tightening up and I had joint issues. Lots of testing and alternations later:
#1 Don't eat processed foods or things that will cause a blood sugar crash. This messes up your energy levels and makes consistent exercise much harder. Bulking up, I don't have a good answer for, other than most Westerners are far, far larger than a human would be on a normal diet. Whether or not 61kg is too skinny depends in part on your height.
#2 Get a standing desk, and use it at least part of the day.
#3 Walk every day for at least an hour (much easier if you are in a walkable city; if I wasn't, I might consider a treadmill desk)
#4 Start doing body weight exercise - I recommend "You Are Your Own Gym" for an easy start. This means you can't make up an excuse to not go to the gym because you can do it right by your desk. In this case, it cured my RSI within weeks. Definitely one of the most incredible things that has happened in my life and completely unexpected.
#5 Use an elliptical for endurance or run occasionally.
The important thing is to build up your strength and flexibility without injuring yourself. You are 22 now, but consider if you will be able to do this stuff for the next 50 years.
This baseline fitness will also make it easier to do more active things without getting tired, whether it is mountain biking, running, kayaking, skating, tennis etc.
Other than adding nuts to my diet, I personally struggle with getting enough healthy calories so I can't advise. But you'll know you aren't eating enough if you start sleeping poorly or if you feel extreme fatigue after a workout.
To become strong and learn good form, start with lockouts and minimal motions (e.g., your first deadlifts should just be a few inches of motion). You can lift a lot of weight with a lockout and that gets you past psychological barriers. With your psychology in check you can then focus on form. To have the best form, study ballet.
A calorie is a calorie. It is just a measure of available energy (1Kcal is about 4Kjoule). The energy itself does not vary.
What does vary is how fast the body processes and can use/store it. 600Kcal worth of food that has most of its calories in processed sugar will be processed and stored relatively quickly so you'll be hungry again sooner than after a 600Kcal meal that has most of its calories in protein or longer form carbs (or to some extent, fats) which the stomach takes longer to process and so keeps you feeling satiated longer.
Of course sometimes you want fast energy (before/during a run for instance) so small sugars are more desirable at those points - tailor your diet to your planned activity.
People who equate fruit and vegetables to "healthy calories" are conflating two things: the calories and nutrients. 250Kcal worth of fruit and veg is healthier than a 250Kcal Mars bar not because of "better calories" but because of the satiation factor as mentioned above and other nutritional factors (fibre, vitamins, minerals, ...).
Also, don't go out of your way to completely avoid carbs. That isn't really effective and some would say unhealthy. Try avoid processed sugars yes, but not carbs overall.
The program doesn't matter too much; there are many decent ones. Anything with a focus on the main barbell movements (squat/dead/bench/overheadpress) with some basic progression scheme is likely sound. strengtheory.com is a great source for info; Greg is legitimately strong and actually has some basic science understanding, unlike 99% of 'fitness nerds' who claim to.
Changing your diet will likely take as much effort as the training. Feel free to use an unusual diet to 'learn' to eat more calories. Even if you have to use lots of milk, bacon, or whatever is tasty and easy to get down, your body gets used to the calorie intake and transitioning to a reasonable diet will be easier.
The real challenge is in habit formation. Try to make it easy on yourself and use whatever tricks you can to stick with it.
I'd strongly reccomend regular yoga as an antidote to the compressing forces of sitting at a chair all day. It's amazing how good I feel after just 20mins of stretches and body weight balances post chair sitting.
There's loads of great instructors on codyapp.com, I reccomend checking out 'office therapy' and building up to some more intense ones
Running is good, great in fact. As long as you run properly and on soft ground, that is. If you can swim somewhere i would recommend that instead as it is easier on the joints. Exercise will also give you an appetite, ofc.
Every hour or so while working at the computer, I'll get down and knock out twenty pushups or so. You'll be surprised at how fast you build up muscle endurance, and your lower back pain will be gone.
Just one data point, I know. But since that data point is 100% of me, I'm sticking with it.
Planks build core strength and the lower back is part of your core.
I would add squats to the pushup routine (even unweighted). They will develop the quads and glutes somewhat.
it's easy to do almost anywhere, but far from best full body workout if you can use gym equipment. Free weight squats and deadlifts are far better.
good form is required for these, but that is valid for any exercise. a friend of mine messed up one of his shoulder from just push ups.
better than swimming?
Get in a pool and just go as fast as you can, for as long as you can. Take a short break, repeat. Do this for 15 minutes a day and you will experience a massive difference in your life.
High intensity training is very good and a pool exercises a lot of muscles, great cardio and very little strain on your body.
Aim for 20 minutes each day, 5 days a week.
Has this been your experience too ? I used to bike an hour a day earlier, but swimming has done something else to my well-being and productivity.
The transformative aspect that I was referring too however was not that, more that swimming as an exercise form is strengthening, incredible cardio and learning to breathe properly is a result of getting better at it.
If you are male, you can also do intense instead of moderate exercise.
For types of exercise, endurance exercise like running or cross country skiing have been found to extend most lifespan, followed by team sports and last strength training
If all that sounds complicated, my advice is to find a job or a hobby that involves moderate exercise. Gardening as a hobby is a good example. Or commit to commute by bike every day
Being on a bike, your priorities shift to keeping yourself alive occasionally, but mostly just thinking while moving forward. It's generally a good place to solve problems for me too.
Most of the evidence I'ev seen points toward cardio for longevity. My goal isn't longevity, though.
Doing anything s better than doing nothing, so you should pursue the fitness routine that suits your goals, so that's cardio if you want to live forever, but I don't, so I squat.
Running 30 minutes or more 3+ days per week until you can run a 5k in less than 20 minutes. (Any form of cardio is acceptable and has an equivalent distance and pace.)
The above are goals that are achievable for most people given time and not overly complicated training (probably a year or two with competent programming, adequate nutrition, and recovery) and easily maintained once reached until you're quite close to death. They are, to some degree, arbitrary, but represent a good area to target to reap the most benefits without risking injury from training volume.
Our bodies were meant to be used.
(This, of course, doesn't address diet, which is probably more important.)
Also 30 pull ups is not an easily achievable number...my friend who is was a gymnast for like 15 years can barely do 25-30...
Don't give people unrealistic goals, they will just feel much worse and stop trying when they realize that they could not achieve those "easy target"...
Same with your friend who can do 30 . . . .
You probably only have to increase the number of slow miles you run per week to get to sub-20. That's the usual advice in r/running.
For 30+ pullups, I never said it was easy. A program I like is the Strongfirst Fighter Pullup program. Another is the Armstrong program.
Most people don't train for those goals explicitly and they aren't aware of the programming and other lifestyle choices that will take them there. There's a difference between easy and achievable.
I feel like these goal would barely be achievable for your average man who is 200 lbs and in his 30's or 40's without a fanatical devotion to weight lifting, a high protein diet, and probably a large supplement intake(creatine).
Even then I would be surprised if greater than 50% of the 200 lb + men could achieve a sub 20 minute 5k, do 30 pulls ups, and a 400lb dead lift.
I'm not certain about the 5k goal at 200+lbs, but I think the pullups should still be achievable on a good program.
At any rate, just aiming for them in good faith and with honest effort will provide many health benefits, which was the point of my comment.
And while goals can be motivating, un-achievable goals can also be demotivating.
Regarding the comment about exercises forcing you to be lean, you might not familiar with most of the research on exercise and how it affects weight. But the best way to summarize it is "Exercise is a great obesity preventative, it is a completely ineffective cure."
I meant that getting leaner through some combination of diet and exercise will make those goals all more achievable, which has obvious health benefits and is something I had in mind when deciding on those goals.
Studies that rely on self-reporting eating history skew the results to ambiguity, but studies in which the experimenters have full and unambiguous knowledge of calories and macronutrients consumed by subjects reveal that the difference in calories digested and the calories burned explains pretty much all changes in weight. It gets only slightly more complicated when talking about body composition (basically, eat enough protein to support your lean body mass and any athletic activity), and even more complicated when talking about long term health (e.g., micronutrient levels that support long-term physiological maintenance mechanisms which are neglected in the sub-clinical nutrient deficient states most people find themselves in).
Fairly simple linear relationships can be used to freely manipulate one's weight, as shown by pretty much any bodybuilder or athlete competing in a sport with weight classes.
Studies aside, it's obvious that relationship between calories digested compared to calories burned is the main determinant of weight as starving populations around the world can tell you. You can't create or maintain mass without the required energy to support cellular metabolism. The physiology and biochemistry is understood well enough for this not to be an issue. The problems professed by the media reporting on studies are mainly ones of measurement (as people don't usually know how to accurately measure their caloric intake, which is why self-reporting studies are basically worthless) and commitment to lifestyles in which they don't chronically overeat relative to their activity level.
Imagine we gave the startup advice "make lots of money, spend very little money". It is advice that every successful company since the beginning of time has followed. And every failed company has failed to do so. However this advice is exactly as valuable as the advice "eat less calories, burn more".
It's no different than the fact that you must spend less than you make to avoid going into debt, and that you must save a certain percentage of your income to save up enough for retirement so that you can continue your standard of living once you retire. And yet we find huge portions of the US population in debt with little to no savings. This doesn't mean the advice is bad or invaluable.
This doesn't mean they're mentally incapable of saving up. That's a behavioral issue, too. And behaviors can be modified. There's research about how to successfully do that, too. Entire industries revolve around modifying behaviors to extract profit from people.
That the studies that you are personally aware of show that people have trouble maintaining a healthy weight suggests, not that it's impossible, but that the subjects don't know how to form and maintain habits.
That people can't implement advice doesn't mean it isn't valuable. At most, it just means they need more advice or counsel. But not different, mutually exclusive, advice.
I know 5 experienced weight lifters and most of them struggle to do 1 pull-up (yes, ONE). None of them run, so doing a 5k under 20 is definitely out of the question (also a factor of age and height).
Also those goals are definitely not for the majority of people, because they require a MAJOR lifestyle change (3x30min/week won't cut it here). It's achievable, but like he said, not easy.
Plenty of strength athletes can move tremendous weights but don't know how to program pullups effectively. Even fewer spend any time on cardio.
Agreed on 3x30minutes being unlikely to be sufficient, but I wanted to give more of a starting off point. For example, Couch to 5k followed by Bridge to 10k is likely enough volume to get you a large part of the way there. Then increasing your weekly mileage to at least 30 miles per week and you'll be right on your way to sub-20.
I don't think that's a recipe for everyone: I got a lot buffer than I was (had to buy new pants / shirts because of the increase in my chest and thigh girth), I am definitely healthier than I ever was: no more back pain, no more grunting like an old man when getting out of my chair, haven't had to use any antibiotics in 3 years (I used to get a lot of ENT infections).
Now, I could have achieve the healthy part by just doing some cardio/bodyweight exercises (e.g.: pushups/pullups). Powerlifting is, by far, out of all the regimen I researched, the most bang for your buck. However, not everyone wants/needs to build muscle/get buffed more than necessary, and deadlifting 2x your body-weight is certainly unnecessary (but extremely gratifying!).
unless you have a) excellent genes for joints and all connective tissue (tendons, legaments etc) and b) super-duper perfect flawless form that you can maintain at any situation and any point of exhaustion, you will screw up your body. it might take 10 years or 20 to see it, but reaching 60-70 you will be more crippled than most sendentary people.
there are many good advices in this discussion here, but these are not one of those.
Most people follow the wrong routine. I went from no prior weight lifting experience to a 180kg deadlift at 75kg body weight at 180cm height in just over six months training three times a week. No one considered this unusual. The difference is that I was training together with experienced powerlifters.
I stopped competing in powerlifting nine years ago and now lift casually to keep in shape and as physical therapy for injuries sustained from other activities. There is no way I could get from the 100kg I lift now back up to 200+ using this approach, and most people I see in the gym don't even try as hard as that. 180kg is definitely possible training twice a week if you train right.
> unless you have a) excellent genes for joints and all connective tissue (tendons, legaments etc) and b) super-duper perfect flawless form that you can maintain at any situation and any point of exhaustion, you will screw up your body. it might take 10 years or 20 to see it, but reaching 60-70 you will be more crippled than most sendentary people.
What makes you say this? Anecdotally I have known a few 60- and 70- year old powerlifters who still put up 140kg+ deadlifts and they seemed fine. The older retired Olympic weightlifters I have met seemed fine as well.
Here's a good site for reasonable strength standards per body weight and gender (though I feel the time estimates in the key are overly cautious): https://symmetricstrength.com/standards#/200/lb/male/-
This is really terrible news for people like me.
I'm searching for a good set of weights on Amazon, but I'm a bit lost. Can you recommend anything (that's a good for a beginner)?
Once you can handle the max included weight, you can buy more plates.
Either that or decide you're OK with poor health and a shorter than necessary life! :)
Still good that you have the option to be active when you want to.
I don't exactly have more energy and I don't feel like I'm going to live forever, but I have noticed I am aging slightly slower than my colleagues who are forced to sit down in their offices for over 12 hours a day.
And it's not everyone. Some people hardly look different from high school. Other looks five years past their biological age.
But that's other people judging your age. When you look in the mirror can you say you look different than you did 5 years ago in the area of age? Can you then extrapolate a level of your own aging over a period of 5 years and compare it against your own coworkers, given what they look like to you now versus what they looked like 5 years ago?
And like I said, I have friends that didn't strike me as looking older than me that now I find do look older than me. Liver spots are a very visible one: some of my friends now have these. Creases around the eyes are another. I have some when I smile, others have creases in permanence. (And other friends the same age don't.)
Of course, it can be hard to separate aging vs. sun damage (that affects nothing deeper) vs. weight gain. All of those make a person look older.
When i was in Mexico last summer people kept asking what I ate and how I stayed so young. I don't do shit!.. Well I don't eat meat more than once or twice a week but I don't think that has anything to do with it.
Personally I believe that most of this stuff has to do with genes rather than exercise but, but I don't doubt that if you exercise moderately you will live longer than your genetic baseline.
After that it's mostly avoiding smoking, alcoholism, junk food, weight gain and chronic stress. (Actually, during my most stressed period, people were guessing my biological age)
Personally I can say that I've enjoyed the transition. My posture has improved greatly. I have a lot less back/shoulder tension and pain. I find myself naturally more inclined to take breaks and walk around, which has many benefits of itself. It took some getting used to but I often spend ~6 hours a day standing instead of sitting.
If you're going to conclude that standing desks are "just a fad" I would hope that you have better evidence than that.
Spending time with mindless exercise: 1/48 part of a year times 70 years is 1.46 years.
If true that's around 8 more years in return for every 1.5 you put in. Nice ROI. :-)
Apart from that, even if you don't consider health issues, a good physical condition will give you more energy and having more energy makes life more fun.
If you were going to die at 80 instead of 70, that's a minimum of 4x increase in SS benefits you can collect.
Reminds me of Bret Victor's Seeing Spaces http://worrydream.com/SeeingSpaces/.
You can also imagine gyms might replace some of their cardio equipment with VR setups, should VR prove to be comparable to existing equipment in workout effectiveness. Even if it wasn't as effective, people might prefer it due to the reduced boredom factor.
Time will tell, but I don't see this as being the same type of misguided hype.
I'm not sure it's that these things never "caught on". I just think they were marketed poorly as serious games, and so only non-serious gamers bothered with them. Then, like with all games, we got bored and moved on, and the market never innovated further (though there was a Kinect Sports 2).
(My personal theory on that one is that the input lag really hurt the platform. Plus, when looking for Kinect developers, you're looking for people who are good game developers AND physically active - testing on physical games is hard work! That narrows the pool.)
However, it's interesting to note that what's pretty much universally regarded as the best Kinect game ever came out this year: http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/13/12173190/fru-game-review-x...
Good luck trying to fake out the monsters in my game, Left-Hand Path, with tiny wrist motions - it's move or get dismembered time :)
(HTC Vive, properly adjusted. Adjustment is key to comfortable wear on the Vive - it's the difference between 15 minutes before discomfort and 2 hours. )
But with headsets small and light enough, it will enable a completely new market. Magic leap said recently that they are now working with production level designs and that it will be smaller than what is currently on market, let's hope that's the case :-)
I conjecture it is the combination of sitting and hard focus on work or video games which is relevant. The brain withdraws attention from the body (which, being supported, isn't required much beyond breathing and digestion). The result seems to be bad things like inflammation, poor lymph circulation, etc, though I think this isn't understood. I remember it was said that, a few decades back in the UK, bus drivers (seated) had more heart attacks than bus conductors (standing).
And I quote "exercise" because it's not clear from the article if it's something like gymnastics, or the participant reported 30 min of daily walking and other activities like cycling. Point being, you could be unhappy and exercise a little bit every day and still be worse off than someone who's happy and loves to sit and watch the bird sings. Who knows.
I'd wager these days the quality of our food, and the bonds we have with people around us is far more incidental on our lifespan.
Here I am thinking of the less explored perspective:
> "One of the tragic outcomes of loneliness is that people turn to their televisions for consolation: two-fifths of older people report that the one-eyed god is their principal company."
Where are the details?
Don't be fooled. Other studies showed that exercise doesn't negate the damage done by sitting:
Get off your butt, especially if you work on a computer. Take breaks to alternate between mental and physical activity.
It actually sounds pretty obvious when you state it like "the subjects that were more active were more healthy" -- we already know that should be the case generally.
My watch reminds me to move to try and get 250 steps an hour, so hourly I try to get up and get some steps. However that's not an increased heart rate and etc.
Also spend about 12 hours at a homemade standing desk. It has really improved everything about my life since I started standing about a year ago.
Another thing that I really highly recommend is Joe DeFranco's stetching programme, Limber 11 (https://youtu.be/FSSDLDhbacc). You can do the whole thing in about 10 minutes, and it leaves your whole body feeling nice and relaxed.
- what "big-picture" information governs the "big-picture" processes?
- critical details swept under the rug with my un-nuanced understanding of the hypothesis, (e.g. "telomeres do not shorten uniformly/monotonically/predictably")?
- how does empirical research concerning telomeres compare to the state (or even future) of our understanding/control of aging?