Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Increased sedentary behaviour alters metabolism and body composition (2018) (nih.gov)
210 points by bookofjoe 25 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 125 comments



"Walking good, sitting bad."

But seriously, I think this sort of adds to the pile of evidence that even small amounts of exercise on a regular basis has marked health impacts.

I'm a Type 1 diabetic so I have the benefit of a sensor that continuously tells me my blood glucose, so I can see the difference between when I'm walking on a daily basis to and from the office, and when I'm working from home. Same breakfast, very different blood glucose averages on those days.

It is worth noting that exercise of almost any kind causes my insulin to potentiate, so that is part of why my glucose levels are lower. But I wouldn't be surprised to hear that my over all insulin sensitivity is higher on walking days (as I gather from this study) which helps to drive my lower glucose numbers.


What kind of sensor do you have ? I am not diabetic but I'd like to monitor my sugar level somehow.


The most popular ones are the Dexcom sensors and then the Freestyle Libre. Unfortunately you need a prescription for both in the US. Otherwise, if you'd like to monitor your blood sugar, you'll have to do it via a blood glucose meter and just space out your testing. You can buy those over the counter at any pharmacy/superstore and they're relatively cheap.

If you end up buying a blood glucose meter, the best way to get a good idea of your blood sugar movement in your body (if there is any) would be testing at several times throughout the day after specific events (like eating and/or exercising). Waking up (for fasting glucose), pre-meal (to get a baseline), post-meal several times (15 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours). I would also experiment with how it reacts to different types of food and beverages. For example, try drinking a glass of orange juice and testing 5-15 minutes after. Some non-diabetics still experience very small blood sugar spikes from liquid carb sources.


Thanks, it looks like the urine test strips and diabetes test strips is the only affordable way at the moment.


If you're only mildly curious and don't wish to invest much then you might consider urine test strips. Very cheap, but the reading is also very vague also. However, they will let you know if you have a problem or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine_test_strip


I use the Medtronic Guardian Plus because it ties into my insulin pump which then regulates how much background insulin to give me. Dexcom, as mentioned in another comment, is a standalone sensor that doesn't tie directly into a pump.

All sensors that I know of are invasive though, so they have to be replaced every 7-10 days, which requires a needle and other things to cover it.

You could also just buy a glucometer (though you'd need a prescription for the test strips, at least in the US) than test once or twice a day and keep a log.


> I use the Medtronic Guardian Plus because it ties into my insulin pump which then regulates how much background insulin to give me.

Oh, so we are finally over that hurdle. Last time I checked there were some liability concerns that prevented manufacturers from closing the loop – the user had to input the numbers.


>>you'd need a prescription for the test strips

I've bought them on Amazon before, no prescription required. This is to monitor blood sugar right?


To be covered by health insurance, glucometer testing strips have to be prescribed.


Sounds like a great combination of devices. How does your HbA1c compare on your current regimen? Do you also self-monitor, and if you do, have you tested your post-exercise levels? I have a number of patients who would benefit greatly from this setup. Thank you for sharing.


Thanks, I'll look into glucometer strips (in Europe).


I think they all need to break your skin in order to test. I'm not aware of any continuous monitors that don't need some blood to work. I anyone is I would be interested.

Here's one https://provider.dexcom.com/education-research/cgm-education...

Also an interesting article about people hacking together their own artificial pancreas https://medium.com/neodotlife/dana-lewis-open-aps-hack-artif...


This machinery is quite finely tuned to an existence that involves a lot of walking, running, jumping, lifting, etc. Deviations from the active lifestyle are obviously going to have negative impacts of various kinds.


Walking and the lymphatic system

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20551311

The underappreciated role of muscle in health

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8748147

I live without a car. I have no desire to change that fact. My condition is incurable. Running errands on foot plays a critical role in staving off deterioration that, among other things, puts me at risk for a form of diabetes.


Right on. Strength to you.


Rebuilding the world for the comfort of cars was probably a mistake then.


Don't worry, that lesson has been learned. Now, the plan is to rebuild the world for the comfort of robot cars.


A million dead every single year directly due to cars. Another million due to there pollution? Yeah, I would say so.


The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem!


Oh, it certainly was, for so many reasons...


We'd probably be happier building our homes by hand.


"Public health recommendations promoting physical activity should incorporate advice to avoid periods of sedentary behaviour."

How do we interpret and apply information like this? Many people work in front a computer these days so it can't actually be applied to them (read us).


In the study, the participants reduced activity for a period of 14 days, with the results being fully reversed after 14 days of resuming normal activity. So I read the quoted recommendation above is to avoid sedentary periods that are on the same order of magnitude (multiple days) vs. avoiding sedentary periods within a single day.

An anecdote: I had a short term knee issue that kept me off my mountain bike for most of the summer. What I didn't do was figure out a replacement activity for the 6-8 hours / week that I used to ride. I just did ... nothing and that had the predictable effect. Now that I'm recovered and riding 6-8 hours / week again, everything is returning back to normal.


> Many people work in front a computer these days so it can't actually be applied to them.

This sort of advice can be literally applied to anyone who doesn't have severely limiting physical limitations. Sure, working in front of a screen is a constraint you may have to work around - but the rest of your time you make a lot of choices about.

Just a for instance, I had a colleague recently who lived in typical suburbia and worked as a programmer. He changed two things: First was that while he still drove in every day, he left 30 min earlier and parked about 20 min away from the office. So he walked about 45 min to and from his car every day regardless. Second thing was to get up and walk nearly every day during lunch, just a little 15 min loop or so.

He visibly lost weight, and claimed to feel great (and that his commute wasn't actually much longer - better traffic)


Where there's a will, there's a way.

At first I was known as that pushup guy at the office, then all the guys did it with me. It was almost a joke. "Alright, it's pushup time!" and my group did pushups. We even got a pullup bar installed. Some people preferred to take those times to walk a lap outside.

If we're going to generalize about what can/can't be done at a software developer job, punctuating the job with some brief exercise is in the "can" camp.


Kudos but it's not even necessary to go that far, basically sitting down and being indoors all day long is the culprit and incorporating more walking activities in our daily lives would be a good start. Pushups and exercises are good on the body but are not addressing root of the problem, they're merely ways to cope with it.


I like the idea of a standup desk with a slow treadmill underneath: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE0JtUeyVJA (Linus Torvalds Guides Tour of His Home Office)


Stephen Wolfram also has the same. Here it is in action: https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/data/uploads/2019/02/05-trea...


Yeah but I am sceptical about being able to enter truly deep thought while walking. I wonder how much work Torvalds actually does on it. He doesn't actually write much kernel code these days so might not need deep thought as much any more.


I've tried playing video games (RPGs) on the treadmill and it's incredibly distracting, I can't imagine trying to code on one.


Haha that's really good. In addition to my under desk treadmill, I also brought some resistant bands so my neighbors and I can occasionally do curls, shoulder presses, etc.


Unfortunately, there are workplaces that will remove things like a pullup bar because it's seen as a distraction.


I would be pretty distracted if there were people using pullup bars and doing pushups in my office...


If your office consists of just one big room where everything must happen, then pullups/pushups are probably the least of your distractions.


As someone who worked in an office with these exact characteristics (complete with a pullup bar), I can vouch that in my case, the pullups were indeed the least of the distractions. The pool table next to all of us was the big problem. High quality noise cancelling headphones did not help at all.


I guess it varies by company culture. If there was a pullup bar installed in the last startup I worked at, I'd still be there. Instead, there was an endless supply of beer so, meh.


Certainly varies, there is a portable pull bar that someone brought into our office that some of us use. It's been there for at least two years


The study had people walk 10,000 fewer steps in a day. So, walking more would reverse it if the study was right.

In practice it would mean taking periodic breaks to walk around a bit, and trying to arrange things such that you could walk some of your commute, or walk to the store, etc

Obviously harder for people in suburbia.


> harder in suburbia

True, takes some adjustments... When I drive somewhere, I try to park at the back of the parking lot for a bit of a walk (bonus: keeps your car dent free too).

When I go check my mail, I walk to the end of the block first and get it on my way back (bonus: get to keep an eye on my neighborhood and say hi to some neighbors).

When I drop my daughter at school we park a block away and walk in (bonus: get to spend more time with my daughter and meet some other parents).

These changes all sound trivial, but from my fitness tracker I can attest that they make a quantifiable difference, especially when you look at it over a month. Additionally, those other little bonuses contribute to overall happiness.


Yup, great ideas. They really do add up. Even in a city I find stuff like that helps me, I often extend an errand through a park for example.

Here's another: when I'm in a multi story building, I almost never take the elevator down. If the building is less than five stories I'll generally take the stairs up too, often at a light run.

One more: stairs instead of escalator. At minimum, walking on an escalator.


These are great ideas - I feel like the key is being conscientious and selfish (in an acceptable way) about yourself (your health and well-being), otherwise the cumulative effects of “efficiency” add up. I need to claw back this time and exercise that used to just be “play”. I personally incorporate my bicycle frequently.


Does that follow though? They took 10,000 fewer steps away, yes, but was there actually any judgement in how those steps were gained/lost? I'm curious if the same effect as those 10,0000 steps could be found simply by going out for an hour walk and still sitting for the rest.


I was also disappointed in the lack of solution as well. We know more exercise is better, how how much would be needed if we have be on the computer 8 hrs a day etc. Couid 5-10 mins every hour of walking prevent these issues etc.


I work in front of a computer, at a standing desk. You can get adjustable desks too and stand for part of the day.

The "not sitting" part is achievable, I believe there are countries (Denmark maybe?) that even mandate that computer desks in offices be adjustable so everyone can choose whether to sit or stand.

That said, I've been working at my standing desk for over a year, I wasn't very fit before, and I don't feel any different now. I don't think that literal "not sitting" has great benefits in itself. Standing is not exercise, you would have to move more to get a real benefit. This study might be measuring a difference in steps taken rather than in "sedentary" behavior vs. standing in place.


The issue is remaining static, sitting is fine in small doses but the longer you sit, the more problematic as blood pools, muscles adaptively shorten, and your posture deteriorates. Sitting down, getting up, walking, driving, we also need to be cognizant of our posture and form during these motions, as there are right and wrong ways that put more or less stress on the body. For instance, sitting down from the hips, bending from those joints while maintaining an upright chest. Or walking, ensuring your feet point mostly parallel and forward, not out to the sides. Also, computer guy posture is rampant amongst tech workers, taking time off to stretch and mobilize is key to avoid long term kyphosis.


To be blatantly hyperbolic, this stuff kills me.

I work in a pretty traditional office space and our desks are not adjustable. I also can’t get any work done if I’m up moving around so I’m at my desk 90% of the day since it seems pretty standard for nobody to take proper lunches.

Get into a problem and suddenly I’ve been sitting for five hours straight. Sometimes longer! Plus you need to be looking busy.

I don’t know how other people do it. I work out in the mornings (hampered now by an ankle injury) but even then I still gain wait and feel just worn at the end of the day. Motivation lowers further when I don’t get regular workouts in.

And I used to work jobs that had physical demands, do other physical activities outside of work. I could eat anything and not gain a pound.

I love the creative and craftwork of developing a sound solution to emergency problems but I hate being so sedentary. It actually drives me crazy and the physical implications just compound that.


Very much agreed. I have a sitting/standing desk and I've had a huge improvement in back issues since using it (and actually standing at it.. it's easy to forget to do that when you're so used to sitting).

However, I also notice that if I'm standing I am more likely to walk away from my desk and move around a bit more.


Standing desks have their problems too (veins, etc). Seems that treadmill desks or literally taking a walk are much preferable


I'd think that at the very least, it's more difficult to stand still for long periods without walking around at least a little bit, than to remain sitting. So prolonged standing presents a lower barrier of entry to not being sedentary.


I used a walking desk for a couple of days a few years ago. It was fine for stuff like reading and responding to emails, but I couldn't write even simple programs while walking.


Do things like take breaks to walk around, use a standing desk, do some sort of physical activity before lunch like go swimming or ride a bike. If the company frowns on this shame on them for being a horrible place to work.


Drink lots of water - it's good for you and the enforced toilet breaks can add up to a lot of extra movement during the day.


I don't think anyone needs the government's help to know that moving around is better than sitting all day. Whether or not one finds a way to fit that into their routine is a personal choice, but this is common sense.


I don't think people know that simply getting up and walking for 10 minutes every 2 hours would reduce their body fat levels. In fact, I've seen a study [1] which concludes you simply can't undo a days worth of sitting with a vigorous exercise session. I think science is starting to show that frequency of movement is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, not just intensity of movement. Going to the gym after 8 hours infront of the computer is just not sufficient to combat weight gain.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404815/


Weight gain is orthogonal to this, as you could just adjust the diet. You would have to do multiple hours of exercise to lose weight that is not just water.

But the difference for cardiovascular and respiratory systems and especially back and neck muscles is big with something as simple as basic walking exercise.

Exercise is not for weight loss, it's too stay fit and healthy. And yes, small regular exercise beats hard exhausting bursts.


This study looks interesting, thank you!


I find excuses to take short breaks during the day where I can walk somewhere. If there's a choice between the stairs or an elevator - the stairs. Little things like that are low impact, but they add up.


>Many people work in front a computer these days so it can't actually be applied to them (read us).

Unless those people are tied or in cages, it can be. First of all, you can take breaks and walks even around the office (e.g. once an hour).

Second, there are standing desks, which are trivially accepted in most workplaces.

Third, "avoid periods" doesn't have to be "avoid several hour stretches".

It can just be "avoid day stretches", in other words, sitting for 8 hours and then going for a walk after (or before) work, is still ok.


Maybe people shouldn't be working in front of a computer for 8-14 hours at a time, with only occasional breaks to use the toilet, get something to drink, or get lunch. What if the working conditions in tech are more inhumane than we've realized?

Maybe we need to update OSHA regulations to cover inherently sedentary office work and boost the agency's enforcement budget so that they can do their jobs and protect workers like us.


Standing desks and frequent breaks are 100% compatible with virtually any computer -related job. Even in the context of "Deep Work" sessions (cf Cal Newport), it's a matter of making a point of periodically stretching your legs and giving your eyes a chance to focus on distant objects


It's kind of like taking drugs, you know? The activity you do is somewhat slowly killing you, so be kinda/sorta OK with that.

Being a little less flippant, my suggestion is to fight for livable cities where car ownership is one option out of many others, including walking and riding bicycles. If you get out of bed, then straight to your car, then drive to work, to then sit some more (x5 days each week), just to reverse it, it's going to be detrimental in the long run to your health - there's just no other way around it.

If that seems unbelievable, think of the diseases of affluence we, as a culture, have: Type II diabetes, heart disease, etc. Our bodies were born to move, not to code all day to then vegetate all night.


> How do we interpret and apply information like this?

Specifically for me, I like the fact that my Apple Watch reminds me to stand after it has detected I have been siting for a long period of time. It also prompts me to take a brisk walk as well.


You need to walk/exercise moderately at least 30 minutes a day. Though, granted, studies show that exercise doesn't fully offset the negative impact from sitting for hours at a time.

When I had a corporate job, I got up every hour on the hour to go the bathroom. It was a huge building, so that got me more walking in than you might assume from the description.


If you are reading this message, and you are in front of a computer (instead of, e.g., walking around and reading this on a mobile device), please stand up for ten seconds, take a deep breath, and sit down again.


> How do we interpret and apply information like this?

Sedentary desk jobs should be considered work hazards and employees should be given desks that can easily be changed to a standing desk and also be allotted a walking break every 15-30min, or install rows of treadmills with an ergonomic laptop holder.


In Poland, such a break is codified in law for sedentary workers. (But it's shorter and you get to distribute it yourself.)

The problem is finding space to walk in. Most offices are not designed for hiking.


Anytime I have to think about an issue I need to step away from the screen. I work from home and usually unless I'm actively typing or looking at references I'm walking around thinking about stuff.


I use an under desk treadmill (iMovr ThermoTread GT) and average 2.5 mi per day. It's fairly quiet and most of my peers like it.

There are also bike options if that's preferred


I actually find the Apple Watch prompts to get off my arse if I haven't stood up in the last hour to be really quite useful. I'm sure there are cheaper ways.


All things considered, my Apple Watch has had the highest ROI of any piece of fitness gear I’ve ever bought. It finally integrated fitness into my life as a daily habit — I find myself actively wanting to run to improve my times and keep workout streaks alive. Gamification is pretty stupid for a lot of use cases, but really motivating for something like working out.


go for a jog/walk/yoga/weights before work, at lunch, after work.

or all 3


I love the phrase metabolic derangements. It accurately conveys how completely abnormal the changes are.


It seems melodramatic to me. And these abnormal changes can be mitigated by walking those 10,000 steps a day they reduced their activity by. That requires a conscious effort, but it's not an onerous burden.


It is not melodramatic, it is a technical term being used properly.

You are perhaps thinking about the psychiatric usage implying a significant mental disorder, but here it just means that the system (i.e. metabolism) has been disturbed in its function, e.g. that it is out of normal range.


Pendantically yes, and yes, it describes the problem, and used medically it's not melodramatic, but looking at the original comments text:

> It accurately conveys how completely abnormal the changes are.

that would make no sense in the medically accurate context. Derangement being used as "something disturbed in its function" is literally anything being wrong, no matter how minor. It doesn't have to be "completely abnormal", merely abnormal by some means. The post I was responding too clearly doesn't believe it to be a minor dysfunction and wasn't understanding it in the technical context either.


It's not a minor dysfunction.

>Pooling data from both groups, following step reduction there was a significant decrease in whole-body insulin sensitivity (Matsuda index) (p < 0.001), muscle insulin sensitivity index (p < 0.001), cardiorespiratory fitness (p = 0.002) and lower limb lean mass (p = 0.004). Further, there was a significant increase in total body fat (p < 0.001), liver fat (p = 0.001) and LDL-cholesterol (p = 0.013), with a borderline significant increase in NEFA AUC during the OGTT (p = 0.050).

Those are incredible p values to find in a human study.


But, as I original pointed out, it's mitigated by maintaining a non-extreme level of activity - throwing on ~10,000 steps is the difference here.


The fact that the fix is relatively easy is not really a measure of how far off things are - some pretty terrible disorders have easy fixes...


I wonder how it reacts to walking on stairs. Less steps, more, or the same?


Does anybody understand why some of the numbers are so out of proportion with the length of time spent in the study? They say they lost 0.2-0.3kg of muscle mass in the lower half of the body. But that's a very large change; when you exercise and train properly, the maximum amount of muscle you get is like 0.5kg/month (the study's reduction in activity was two weeks long), and when you gain weight some fraction is always muscle (they didn't gain weight but they gained fat mass and lost muscle mass, IIUC from Table 2).

I remember reading that when you start/stop exercising, your muscles retain a different amount of water depending on how much work they typically do. So is what they got an actual change in body composition?

When they report lowered VO2max of 2.2ml/min/kg, that's ±4.7 according to Table 2. Isn't 2.2ml/min/kg an improbably large change for two weeks, compared to how quickly your VO2max will improve if you, e.g., start running? And why is the SD on that so large?


There is a good chance you aren't being paid enough to sit at that desk all day.


I don't have access to the article - does anyone know what they mean by "sedentary"? From the abstract it looks like there was an 80%/10k reduction in steps taken, which would mean these are people taking ~12.5k steps a day. Is that what they mean by active, or was there a requirement for, e.g., vigorous cardiovascular exercise?


It's open access.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00125-018-4...

>Physical activity was assessed in participants’free-living envi-ronment. A mean daily step count >10,000 was required forparticipants to be eligible. Screening was blinded and consistedof monitoring from midnight to midnight on 4 consecutivedays, including 1 weekend day. If eligible, participantsunderwent their initial assessment visits before being instructedto reduce their activity to ~1500 steps for 14 days

>Mean daily step count was similar between the two groups at baseline: FDR+ve, 12524 ± 2137 vs FDR−ve, 13036 ± 2481 steps (p= 0.391).

>During the step-reduction period, average daily step count decreased by 10285 steps(95% CI 9389, 11182;p< 0.001), a reduction of 81 ± 8%. Inparallel, daily sedentary time increased by an average of223 min (151, 295;p< 0.001) and daily total energy expen-diture (TEE) decreased by an average of 2697 kJ (3008, 2385;p< 0.001). All activity >1.5 METS (i.e. light, moderate andvigorous) decreased during the step-reduction period (allp< 0.001).


I wish these articles tried to look for a solution. Would standing and waking every 45 mins be good enough? Would standing and then moderate intensity at 45 mins be good enough etc.

What about eating less and more fasting to combat sedentary.

What about a balance board while standing?


I wonder if your time would be better spent progressive-overload deadlifting 2x a week?

I don't think you can undo sitting 50-100 hours a week with a few hours of walking any more than fasting a few hours would make up overeating for a month. I'm thinking we need a BIG acute stimulus to counteract a sustained chronic stimulus of inactivity. The dead lift is a VERY BIG stimulus.


Similarly, if you are cycling, rowing, running, cross-country skiing, etc., with high intensity, you need to recover. You can recover while sitting at your desk working on your computer. How much recovery can be estimated with TRIMP, and TSS if you have measured your power output.


12,000 steps is about 2 hours of walking, though that is tracked throughout the entire day and not in a single walk. Most pedometer apps I've seen tell you to shoot for 10,000. If you have an Android phone, there is a FOSS app on Fdroid simply called Pedometer.


If you can handle owning a dog, that's a great way to force yourself to get out and walk or run a little every day.


If you can't afford a dog, a full sized mirror could be a wise investment.


A full sized mirror that leaks onto your carpet if you’ve not walked enough could be a venture.


Obvious studies crack me up.

It is a shame that PE is continuously being removed from many K12 school curriculums. If you get people into the habit of exercising and being active when they're young it's much easier to maintain that habit into the future.


The only thing most kids learn in PE is that exercise is awful and sports are only for jocks.


Most? Sounds like your own experience, but that is not the norm


Very true. Everybody used to grouse at those 7 AM PE classes when I was in high school, which have since been cut from what I've heard, but they really did get kids in the habit of assuming that regular exercise is just an expected thing that people do.


I'm a living example of this.


So when do we get danger money like troops and guards?


On one hand, my body is probably fucked from laying in bed for 18 hours a day, every single day, a year.

On the other hand, moving about is exhausting and hurts so why would I want to do it? I fully plan on killing myself before 30 so it's not like I'll see the knock-on effects.


Why are you lying in bed for 18 hours a day? Is it depression or another illness? Don't kill yourself just for turning 30, I am 30 and life keeps on keeping on, just as decently as before. Sure my hair line is a bit receded and I get a bit more aches and pains, but by and large it's the same as before, except I have a stability and future set up that I had only dreamed of at 23.


31 and skating almost everyday, strongest, most handsome & probably most youthful I've ever been since beginning adolescence. Do Recommend.


I'm definitely way more attractive to women now than I was at 23 (ten years of trial and error)


If you're not moving no wonder you think it's painful & exhausting to so and that life in general is crap, you're weak aka unhealthy and already 'actively' killing yourself by trying to go against what your nature demands, obviously it sends you the bill nonetheless. Easy to fix.


I don't know your situation, but if you need someone to talk to, I'm here my dude.


Why would I want to talk to somebody?


Because you'll find that when you have to explain what's causing your problems that it's not nearly as bad as it seems when it's just nebulous garbage rolling around in your head. Also, if you talk to the right person, you might discover that you don't exist and that Life is a dream, and that the point of it is to become infinitely loving and utterly selfless ...


Why kill yourself before thirty?


I don't want to be old.


Thirty definitely ain't old. It's just funny seeing this to me because I used to say the same thing when I was a teen. "I wont make it to thirty! live fast die young baby!" But I'm 33 now and it's been the best few years of my life so far. Still afraid of the diseases of aging, and of my elderly future, but it's the human condition. That's life, don't miss it.


I think Logan's Run was intended as a cautionary tale, not a model for how society should be.

Edit: Less flippantly, with age comes some benefits. Yeah, while I had a lot of energy in my younger years and could eat whatever I damned well pleased, as much as I damned well pleased, my attitudes of that time period, which were very much born of my inexperience, had some long term costs I am still paying for. But the tradeoff is that with those lessons, I can make better judgements on what actions contribute or detract from longer-term goals, or even what longer-term goals might be worth having.

If you play your cards right, getting older can be a good thing. So rather than thinking of being old as some terrible thing to be avoided at all costs, look to see how it could be played to your advantage. Come 30, what things would be fulfilling to be doing or having? If your answer is "nothing", then I think I can justly accuse you of not even trying to look.


30 isn't old. I'm 38, and I'm more active and exploring life than ever. "Old" is only what you are when you stop pushing yourself.


Joe Rogan said in a recent podcast, "I'm _way_ more fit than I was at 30, and I'm 52 now. I'm way more fit because I DO more, I work out way more ..." Of course there's a certain amount of momentum-building that goes into that. And then there's the ALL IMPORTANT self-discipline ...


See if you can come up with some goals that will take you multiple lifetimes to achieve. Spiritual goals. Life Purpose. Just pick something and see how far you can get with it. Don't just give up, that's not why you designed all this.


Why is getting old a bad thing in your book?


Every single reply to this has validated my decision


[flagged]


Downvoted because these types of comments are unsubstantive.

You are basically just affirming Linus's Law: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". Just because the bug is shallow to you doesn't mean it is shallow to everyone.


I agree with the guy above you; the results of their hypothesis were already very well known. Everyone realizes that getting less exercise decreases calories burned in a day. These studies need to start going further in depth than just reading that your health gets worse if you stop exercising.


I think you and the guy above are missing a key point in this paper, the emphasis on "Short Term" in the title.

While most people realize that a sedentary lifestyle has issues, it will surprise a lot of people that a typically active person who is sedentary for 2w (e.g. an injury, a deadline at work, whatever) might have measurable metabolic changes...


It's kind of obvious, I got a weird pneumonia, and even when interspersing walking for and hour or more I'm starting to feel my back muscles getting sore just from lying in a bed and sitting for most of the day.

This has been just over two weeks. And the weather is now cold so I cannot take longer walks.

(On the other hand, diet is even more adjusted so I lost weight rapidly.)


I think every one knows what needs to change as well. To effectively use our bodies in the way they've evolved, we need to be using them from sun-up to sun-down every day.

We evolved on savanas, upland steppes, mountains, and jungles; hunting, gathering, foraging, defending, building, with raw human power, for the vast majority of our time on this planet.

If we had to push plows with human labor; gather and reap the harvest by had, I guarantee you we'd be fit af.


>If we had to push plows with human labor; gather and reap the harvest by had, I guarantee you we'd be fit af.

We'd also be worn out by middle age. Look at various manual labor trades for example. You wind up with a couple muscle groups in great shape and a couple others that are just destroyed.


I’d guess “Labor” is the key operative word here, i.e. working not directly for what is produced but selling labor for a low, unskilled wage. I wonder whether subsistence farming one’s own land is necessarily as bad, I’d think you can just stop working when you have enough to eat, but people paid by the hour or whatever always seem to push too far.


Yep. Our physiology is built to burn out relatively young. Living into old age is a modern modern convention (~<5kya)


> we need to be using them from sun-up to sun-down every day.

That is not clear at all. Using them more, yes. Avoiding repetitive actions (or mitigating them) yes. I'd like to see any evidence that has been gathered for sun-up to sun-down being necessary; I'd assume overuse is also a problem.


I am all for science but I am really curious why we need studies to prove things that are this obvious and simple. Hell just with thought experiments, basic thermodynamic principles and a little Anatomy and Physiology alone you conclude most of these things.


Thought experiments based on basic principals and our still too weak understanding of bio-phys can (and have, time and time again) lead you to an awful lot of plausible but wrong conclusions.

There is no real substitute for doing the science.


Really we need to do a study that says when you exercise less and sit around your body fat increases specifically in your internal organs. I think this is common sense and how fat accumulation works. This has been proven in the past and should be common knowledge. Insulin dependence related to this makes a little sense for a study but it is pretty well accepted that being obese increases your risk of type 2 diabetes. The fact that if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight/body fat and if you don't you will increase weight/body fat is simple yet there is a diet industry built on fads and a bunch of over educated people with too many degrees in non physical science fields pushing their ideals so they can make money.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: