Look at Figure 2C in particular. The hazard ratio of smoking is 1.41. The hazard ratio between "Low" (<25th percentile) and "Below Average" (25th-49th percentile) cardiovascular health is 1.95.
In other words, it is by far better to be a smoker than in the lower 25% of non-exercisers.
Which is fun, but of course both risk factors are addictive as smokers can be both. Could more be done on fitness (in particular, compared to smoking)? Sure, but our current strategies on exercise are a giant failure whereas on smoking they're a large success.
The biggest problem with fitness today is that fitness outside of group sports is where fun goes to die. It is 2023, and we still have very few gaming-like integrations at the gym, fun isn't even on the radar for the fitness industry. They might throw a TV showing the news into the corner and some "achievements" on your Fitbit/Apple Watch.
Ultimately, there is a lot we could do on fitness/exercise to make people WANT to do it, but we aren't. We just keep repeating the whole "exercise should feel like chore, and you should want to do it anyway" strategy over and over with new lipstick and being surprised when it fails.
Where is fun? The industry is essentially innovation free.
The simpler way to get free fitness is when it's incidental.
Americans don't even build their cities where they can walk anywhere, so exercise is seen as this thing you compartmentalize into a gym. You go there for exercise. Outside of it, you don't move at all. It's bleak and probably hard to notice until you've lived elsewhere.
The ideal is probably when you don't have to think "uh oh, gotta get my exercise in" at all—you've already done it going about your day.
I know wood heat is unpopular on HN, but firewood is a great example of what you're suggesting. There's an old saying that it heats you four times: once when you cut it, once when you split it, once when you stack it, and once more when you burn it.
Why would that be? That wood is going to turn into carbon dioxide when aging anyway.
Sure open fireplace are now accepted to be bad for the health but it's not complicated to "upgrade" an open fireplace into a closed one (which moreover offer much better efficiency).
Last winter I warmed the (relatively small) house with the closed fireplace only.
Now, granted, it may not be an option for city dwellers living one on top of another: negative externalities of chimneys are a thing.
But for anyone living in suburb or in rural, wood heat is great.
I bought a cheap $50 used treadmill off of Craigslist, removed the arms and control panel, and stuck it in front of my standing desk. Used it daily for ~1hr for 2 years before it irreparably broke, so I bought another one on CL.
I don't even run - I walk fast at ~3.4mph at a 10% incline. It's my "zone 2" training. And lemme tell you - when that hour is over, there is sweat all over the place. Even in winter.
And the entire time I'm happily programming (or social-mediaing).
After getting used to a slow treadmill at my stand up desk, even watching TV and gaming on a couch feels like wasted opportunity.
Most entertainment isn't so engrossing that it needs my undivided attention sitting on a couch. The best example lately has been Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom where a surprising amount of time is spent just running around. Might as well do it from a treadmill.
> Which is fun, but of course both risk factors are addictive as smokers can be both.
All the person around me who are doing sport do not smoke and all smokers around me do not do sport. It's worse than "smokers can be both", it's "smokers are usually both".
So 7-9 hours of sleep, 2.5-5 hours of moderate physical activity if you are healthy and not require more sleep or activity for chronic conditions. 8-9.4 hours that a software engineer (in games) is expected to be at a screen which bossware tracks. Plus an hour for lunch, which is kind of throwaway. All together, that makes 18.5-24.4 hours a day.
But where do you fit other adult responsibilities, chores, social life, spiritual life, self-care, entertainment, learning, hobbies, intellectual pursuits, and other things? Where do you fit your commute, shopping, and kids - the non-negotiables? So something has to give. Sleep or exercise, right? Perhaps this is why we're all so unhealthy?
That bullet point was a little confusing because it basically connects to the next bullet, but it's 2.5-5 hours of moderate physical activity per week, not per day.
I share the sentiment. Still, this is «gantt chart thinking». I bike the kids around and myself to work and the store, so I can do two things at a time. Bonus, saves $€£ and time, since there’s traffic issues when driving to work. I realize this is not possible for everyone, but there’s a lot of people who could do the same, too.
2.5-5h exercise per week not day and simple things like taking the stairs instead of an elevator, going for a walk during lunchbreak, taking the bike instead of the car, cleaning, shopping (usually involves walking) etc all count.
I "solved" this problem by incorporating movement into work. I spend almost all meetings on bike, the only exception being when they require the camera on (like once a month) or I have to present something/lead a workshop etc. I also make frequent breaks to do some exercises and frankly, nobody cares, because I work from home. It seems unthinkable to go back to the old regime when you were expected to sit on your ass either working or pretending to work "just because".
Bonus: when getting back to my laptop I feel refreshed and full of ideas, and often solve blockers fast.
You're completely right, and barking up the most vital tree.
This 8-9.4 hours "working" is what needs to be adulterated with movement, social life, and intellectual pursuits. It also needs to be shorter. As workers, we need to set stronger boundaries around our health. Our demand for better working conditions should take these scientific findings into account.
Edit: movement, I might add, should also be social and/or spiritual, and shopping should be more social.
The reproductive labor force have their own tight schedules. Relegating spouses to reproductive labor imposes a sexual hierarchy that subordinates women to men and denies them opportunities for autonomy and self-valorization.
Come on, we've been over this. Mary Wollstonecraft? Betty Friedan? Silvia Federici?
And that makes my point any less valid how? I think it just reinforces it.
It’s a lot of work and specialization on both sides. Pretending everyone can do everything equally on all sides all the time, let alone would want to or have good outcomes is a fantasy.
Amusingly, in my experience the woman is actually in charge in these situations anyway because if the man doesn’t make her happy he will regret it, regardless of how reasonable it is, laws, or facts.
He who can destroy a thing controls a thing?
Any subordination is usually a facade, but I’m sure not always.
There is no perfect, and nothing that ‘works’ for everyone.
Anecdotally, most women I’ve run across would love to be a stay at home parent, but can’t find someone willing to do the ‘other side’ with them. If they say it out loud, they get jumped by most other women though. YMMV.
It’s like women going into labor, construction, combat, etc.
Go ahead, knock yourself out - it destroys one’s body quickly, even for men who are genetically more predisposed to physical toughness and strength, and in some cases one’s mind. Why do it if there is another, more comfortable option? Especially one that fits needs they might have better.
Even if one can, why does one want to? And how likely is it to produce an outcome someone will be happy with later?
Why is screen time singled out as an undesirable form of sedentary activity for children when it is just as sedentary as, say, sitting and doing homework?
Things in life are sometimes hard. We need to go through hard things to create great things. Let’s instead teach kids that they need to do hard things to become great people. As a footnote, it will do wonders for their dopamine addiction (which is fueled by everything being fun and easy).
Screen time can impact behavior and psychological well-being differently compared to most other sedentary activities. While both can affect physical health, excessive screen time specifically affects psychological well-being along with its impact on the body.
I'm not sure how these studies ever conclude that screen time affects psychological well-being. What they do not account for is whether the parents of those troubled kids are less creative or available to nurture the kids, which in itself leaves the kids with more time to watch TV. Or perhaps these kids are just difficult little humans to begin with, and the parents need a break more often by allowing them to watch some TV.
You're right, passively spoon feeding endless low brow entertainment into a barely matured mind while ruining their attention processing as well as their eyesight is totally being unfairly singled out.
I think you are right about the eyesight part. Though I think what you did there indeed is unfair, you made it sound like “screen time” can only mean “passively spoon feeding endless low brow entertainment.”
> should limit the amount of time spent being sedentary
> should do at least 150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity;
or at least 75–150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity; or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity throughout the week
If I do the recommended amount of physical activity but at the same time I’m also rather sedentary (e.g., spend many hours in front of the computer), am I “fine”? Family and friends tell me all the time “You spend so much time with your pc”… but I do a lot of aerobic and anaerobic exercises during the week. Not sure if the effect of the latter somehow gets diminished by the former. I feel great, tho.
I doubt it makes much sense to look for some bare minimum that's "fine" since there seems to be no upper limit on the pay off, and you can always stack the deck more in your favor.
It's probably better to figure out any sort of incidental movement you can add to your life in a way that you enjoy.
Look at Figure 2C in particular. The hazard ratio of smoking is 1.41. The hazard ratio between "Low" (<25th percentile) and "Below Average" (25th-49th percentile) cardiovascular health is 1.95.
In other words, it is by far better to be a smoker than in the lower 25% of non-exercisers.