Looking at overall mortality seems pretty limited. In my 20s I would sit at my desk all week, then go all-out on the weekend. Long bike rides, hikes, backpacking trips, etc. I had pretty good base-level fitness, but ended up with knee pain and minor injuries from strain and lack of flexibility. A near-daily gym habit has solved all of that for me. Seems like maintaining flexibility requires somewhat regular practice, and that's how you avoid injury.
I should talk to my primary care doctor. I don't really care or need to look buff or lift 300 pounds, but avoiding injury as I get older would be nice.
Testosterone Replacement Therapy. As we age our hormones decline so by taking testosterone exogenously it allows the body to have optimal testosterone levels.
This headline isn’t accurate with the findings of the study. Working out 3+ days a week is not “daily” and hazard ratios of .95 and .85 are not equal.
The hazard ratio for cardiovascular disease comparing those working out 3+ days and 2 days is 1.14. This wasn’t even mentioned isn’t in TFA but strikes me as significant, or at least considerable.
Maybe a better headline could be “working out only on weekends nearly as good as working out more often”
Ish. I'm a weekend exerciser. But my strength is incomparable to someone who exercises every 3 days.
I can run a 7.5 minute mile for example. But the people around me who exercise more frequently can run 6.5 minute miles. I can lift maybe 100lbs, but they can lift their bodyweight. Etc. etc.
Its pretty obvious to me that weekend exercise has health benefits. But not so much strength / endurance benefits (which is and should be, your primary health goal).
-----------
I think people need to calibrate their health expectations. Being stronger, feeling stronger, being faster, running longer... these are good attributes and clearly defined goals. They're easy and obvious to recognize as you exercise... more so than weight-loss or abstract goals like "better health".
At least, that kind of thinking works for me. Maybe not for everyone, but I recommend people give it a try. Still, weekend-warriors will only reach weekend-levels of strength and endurance. That's okay for me, but I'd never consider myself equal to those who are obviously stronger than me.
In either case, reaching 100lbs lift strength or 5 pullups or aiming for a sub-8 minute mile or whatever... while less good than a good and proper exerciser is still a great goal to work towards. Yes, feel good about your goals, even if you know stronger people than you. But also be humble and recognize where you stand in the world.
And who knows? Maybe you'll get hooked on self improvement. Once you lift 100lbs or run sub-8 minute mile, then maybe you will gain the inspiration to lift 120lbs or 140lbs (reaching closer and closer to bodyweight lifting)... or drop down to 7-minute mile or sub-6 minutes. I mean, I didn't, but some other people do like the feeling. It honestly is one of the better motivations, seeing your own progress.
-----
In any case, that extra +1 day (from 2-exercises per week to 3-exercises per week) adds a lot to your strength/endurance overall. Its really obvious and probably one of the easier ways to reach your fitness goal, whatever it is.
And there's nothing stopping you from being a "visitor" to a more frequent exercise routine if you want to "try it out" for a few months and see how it affects your body. Try 3 exercise sessions per week, or 4, and then drop back down to 2 or whatever works better long term. Consistency is really the key, but visiting higher-levels and seeing if its "worth it" to your brain / psyche is important.
>I can run a 7.5 minute mile for example. But the people around me who exercise more frequently can run 6.5 minute miles. I can lift maybe 100lbs, but they can lift their bodyweight. Etc. etc.
If that extra strength/endurance doesn't translate to much better health outcomes, but only marginally better, then it's kind of moot. And we do know that there are diminishing returns after some point (and even inverse returns: pro athletes and people training too hard often have health issues because of their extreme training).
>Its pretty obvious to me that weekend exercise has health benefits. But not so much strength / endurance benefits (which is and should be, your primary health goal).
Sorry, but health should be the primary exercize goal, not stength/endurance.
I think it is pretty clear which goals are clear and well defined... vs opaque goals with poor-definitions.
And I think it is clear to say that "clear and well defined goals" are easier to achieve and measure against. "Run a mile" can be measured as "running as far as you can, and if you don't reach a mile, measuring where you stopped" for example. And you can track your progress as you get more endurance.
-------
I don't think everyone should have the same goals. But I think that whatever goals you do have, should be clear and easily turned into a metric that can track progress.
Did somebody forbade you? This is not about exercize goals in abstract, and nobody forbids you to "set your own goals". This is in the context of what makes sense as a primary goal for exercizing.
If that extra strength/endurance doesn't translate to much better health outcomes, but only marginally better, then it's kind of moot. And we do know that there are diminishing returns after some point (and even inverse returns: pro athletes and people training too hard often have health issues because of their extreme training).
The science on all of this stuff is really sketchy. Perhaps people who exercise a lot may live longer not due to the exercise itself, but because they see their doctor more often and treat chronic disease such as heart problems sooner and have higher incomes, higher IQs, and better healthcare. Manual laborers don't live longer than white collar workers. Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger have terrible diets and do no exercise yet are both still healthy and fully active at 91. Same for William Shatner, who went to space at 90. Genes play a huge role too.
The main issue with "health as a goal" is that its very ill-defined and hard to measure.
Instead, if your goal is "run a 5k without stopping", then its really much more obvious if you're hitting or missing that goal. Or 10 pullups (or 5 pullups or whatever).
You can ask yourself: what can a healthy-person do? There's a bit of wiggleroom and interpretation over it. I think run a mile, lift 100lbs, and do some pullups and a handstand / cartwheel. Yeah, its a bit silly but... they are defined goals that I was unable to do before I practiced, and am now able to do.
> If that extra strength/endurance doesn't translate to much better health outcomes
That extra strength/endurance translates into my ability to walk around cities and other locations I visit.
I think the "run a mile" and "run/jog a 5k" benchmarks are useful, because when you're visiting other cities, you want to have enough leg strength and endurance to like, walk around and not take an Uber all the time?
Cartwheel / handstand / pullup is largely for fun. I can't say that its ever been useful, but playing with my nieces and keeping up with them is important to me in some respects. I think I use some of that strength when lifting my nieces and carrying them around when they get tired in the city.
"Lift 100 lbs" is just officework, strangely enough. Every now and then, you gotta move a UPS unit or whatever, and having the strength to move lead-acid batteries around the racks is helpful (even if you nominally have a 2nd person supposed to be helping you).
I'm no power-lifter, but its a level of strength that apparently a lot of my other officemates don't have.
---------
The flexibility to "slav-squat" / "3rd world squat" is useful when changing tires / working on my car. Also quickly sitting / resting in front of a store in a city without touching the ground.
Being the weekend exerciser means that I'm able to keep up with the athletes when they want to walk to the next restaurant / location... rather than taking an Uber with the non-exercisers.
I'm not strong enough to beat the athletes in a footrace. But they're not racing me, they're just walking at their normal pace / jogging pace to make travel a bit quicker.
-----------
Being the weekend-exerciser means that I can lift one of my nieces and throw her around safely as I play with her. (Ex: pick her up, throw her onto the monkey bars at the playground and whatnot).
But I'm not as strong as the athlete who can lift _TWO_ of my nieces (one in each hand) and toss them both around safely and at the same time. As such, my nieces swarm the athlete of the group and ask to be picked up / moved around / etc. etc when we go to playgrounds. Because having fun with her sister is twice the fun.
You know, little things that stronger people can do that weaker people cannot do.
>Being the weekend exerciser means that I'm able to keep up with the athletes when they want to walk to the next restaurant / location...
Do you have that problem a lot? Because a whole lot more common problem is cardiovascular problems, obesity, and sedetary life.
And what I mean with "health as a goal" is "No need to try to be an endurance runner, or build serious muscle, or whatever, just do enough say cardio for heart health, lifting to be generally fit" and so on.
And it's not vague, as for those there are recommended guidelines and suggestions of the exercize amount - but one can do even better to get personalized ones from your doctor.
Strictly for mortality, ok, it makes sense they are similar. But that’s really just because the drop off from getting any exercise to no exercise is so huge.
The confidence intervals are so loose on this that,
on the one hand they can't state that 0.85 is actually less than 0.92,
on the other hand, that means they can't make much of a claim about any benefit from exercise whatsoever.
