What is the healthiest thing one can do?

[Pedaling Fool]

Every once in a while there's an article showing how intense exercise is a bad thing and can actually reverse life span, some examples:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...over-long-term
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31095384

I never put much credence in these article; however, there is something to be said for over-doing it all the time without much recovery, but the articles are not addressing that issue, rather they are saying that you should always do moderate/easy exercises. That's crazy. And finally there's some counter information out there:

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog..._lifespan.html


Excerpt:

The alarming report, of course, did not appear in a vacuum of scientific evidence. Many studies -- hundreds in fact -- have been performed on the very subject the Copenhagen study tried to tackle: exercise intensity and mortality. Cardiologist Dr. Fabian Sanchis-Gomar recentlyreviewed them in the journal Sports Medicine.

"In the bulk of original studies and meta-analyses, the mortality/exercise curve would show a steep decrease in mortality from sedentary behavior to moderate exercise, a more attenuated decrease from moderate to vigorous exercise activity, and finally a plateau with heavy exercise. Thus, there is strong evidence against the existence of a J- or U-shaped relationship between exercise intensity and mortality."

The bulk of research suggests that strenuous exercise isn't harmful; it simply doesn't decrease mortality rates very much compared to moderate exercise. If you think about it, that's exactly what you might expect. That status quo, however, doesn't often draw headlines.

What does consistently draw headlines is when someone dies while running a marathon. Though incredibly rare -- among 10.9 million men and women in the U.S. who ran marathons between 2000 to 2010, only 59 died -- and often attributed to underlying cardiovascular disease, these tragic occurrences are often used as startling anecdotes in articles about the potential dangers of strenuous endurance events like marathons or triathlons. Filling in the bodies of these pieces are disconcerting tidbits of information from scientific research. For example, in the wake of running a strenuous race, individuals' hearts often show signs of overexertion and stress (which is unsurprising). Moreover, athletes' hearts sometimes undergo physical changes often associated with cardiovascular disease, and those who regularly undertake strenuous exercise experience higher rates of and irregular and often rapid heartbeat called atrial fibrillation.

In his review article, Sanchis-Gormar notes that these characteristics may not be as unhealthy as they seem. Oftentimes, the deleterious heart effects showcased in studies disappear as the individual recovers from the event, with no apparent long-term negative effects.

"If lifelong ‘over-exercise’ was responsible for clinically relevant effects, one would expect this to affect the cardiovascular disease mortality of elite endurance athletes, which does not seem to be the case," Sanchis-Gomar writes.

The potential detrimental effects of frequent strenuous exercise can't be ruled out entirely and certainly deserve further study, Sanchis-Gomar says. However, he adds, "The numerous benefits of exercise, even at the highest intensity level, seem to outweigh its negative effects."

[sliverstorm]

Let's not forget, optimizing for one variable is dangerous. Even if heavy exercise is not much better for longevity than moderate exercise, or even if it is slightly worse for longevity, heavy exercise has other positives such as boosting bone density, which is a problem for some people later in life.

[sliverstorm]

Sorry, should clarify, heavy exercise with weights was linked to increases in bone density. Not sure about heavy exercise as a runner, or a swimmer, or what have you.

[Pedaling Fool]

Let's not forget, optimizing for one variable is dangerous. Even if heavy exercise is not much better for longevity than moderate exercise, or even if it is slightly worse for longevity, heavy exercise has other positives such as boosting bone density, which is a problem for some people later in life.

Sorry, should clarify, heavy exercise with weights was linked to increases in bone density. Not sure about heavy exercise as a runner, or a swimmer, or what have you.

I agree. And I know there are some that will focus on the "attenuated decrease" remark from moderate to vigorous exercise and rationalize that there is no need for more vigorous exercise.

However, to your point, as I said I agree; the importance of more vigorous exercise is to build up bone, but also connective tissues and to create as many blood vessels as possible, it's more effective in lowering the blood pressure and HR and generally help in building up many parts of the body where moderate exercise cannot do, regardless if it's weightlifting, cycling, running, hiking -- not to mention that it takes far less time for the same benefits of moderate exercise...I see this a key to not only building a healthy body, but also having a healthier body further in life (not speaking to life span, rather quality of life).

[Pedaling Fool]

Another story on this issue of exercise quantity: How much exercise is too much... http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/21/c...cise-too-much/

Exercise and good health go hand in hand. Exercise and physical activity have been linked to protection against heart attack, stroke, diabetes, some types of cancer, dementia, and more. A little bit of exercise is better than none, and more than a little is even better. But is there an upper limit beyond which too much exercise is harmful?For almost everyone, the answer is no. As several colleagues and I write in the latest issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), the main problem in the United States and around the world is too little exercise. One-quarter of Americans don’t exercise at all; only about half hit the weekly recommendation of 150 minutes of moderate exercise (like walking) or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise (like running).
Modern life has factored exercise out of our lives. I recently took a historical tour of my hometown of Simsbury, Conn. According to the guide, in the 1700s, the average Simsbury resident burned between 4,000 and 6,000 calories a day, chopping wood, hauling water, farming, and the like. Today, most of us burn under 2,000 calories a day. In other words, we need more exercise, not less.

At the other end of the spectrum

I’ve been interested for years in whether too much exercise could somehow offset its cardiovascular benefits. Having run the Boston Marathon 29 times (finishing 16th in 1976), I know how much training is needed to run a marathon or a triathlon, to row or cycle competitively, and the like.

In the JACC article, we explored four recent studies that suggest exercising a lot may not be as good for the heart or long-term health as exercising more moderately. In these studies, people who exercised strenuously appeared to lose most of the cardiovascular benefits that exercise provided to more moderate exercisers.

It’s important to keep in mind that the number of people at the upper end of the exercise spectrum in these studies was very small. So the results should be used to generate new hypotheses, not to make recommendations about exercise. Unfortunately, the media attention these studies generated has sown some confusion among the public about the benefits — and hazards — of exercise for preventing heart disease.

That said, the results are intriguing, and there may be biological explanations for them. For example, endurance activities such as running a marathon stretch the right ventricle — the chamber of the heart that pumps blood to the lungs. This could be hazardous among individuals with a genetic predisposition for a relatively rare condition called right ventricular cardiomyopathy.

Overall, though, as a group, endurance and elite athletes who exercise at the upper end of the physical activity spectrum aren’t at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, and tend to live longer than individuals who are sedentary and those who exercise moderately.

No upper limit for exercise

Over the years, hundreds of studies have shown that exercise and physical activity are associated with lower rates of heart disease and longer life. Wethink this is due to exercise itself. But none of these studies has ever been able to exclude the possibility that people who choose to exercise are genetically and physiologically hardier. That might be especially true for endurance and elite athletes.

Here’s the bottom line on exercise “dose” and cardiovascular health: Any amount of exercise is better than none. Even something as simple as standing instead of sitting is beneficial. For moderate exercise, like walking, there is no upper limit, although doing it for more than 100 minutes a day doesn’t seem to convey any extra cardiovascular benefit.

Vigorous activity, like jogging, can offer large cardiovascular benefits, though doses up to 10 times the recommended amount (about 12 hours a week) don’t have an extra payoff.

Author: Paul D. Thompson, MD, is a cardiologist at the Hartford Hospital, where he is chief of cardiology, cardiovascular research, and the Athlete’s Heart Program. He is also professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut.

[Pedaling Fool]

Weight training finally starting to get attention it deserves; maybe some gyms will give more space to free weights and less valuable space to stupid low impact cardio machines
... http://news.psu.edu/story/405621/201...ts-live-longer

Excerpt:

Many studies have previously found that older adults who are physically active have better quality of life and a lower risk of mortality. Regular exercise is associated with prevention of early death, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and some cancers.But although the health rewards of physical activity and aerobic exercise are well established, less data have been collected on strength training.

One reason for this lack of data could be that strength-training guidelines are newer than recommendations for aerobic activity. Although the American College of Sports Medicine first issued aerobic exercise guidelines decades ago, it was not until 2007 that the organization and the American Heart Association released a joint guideline recommending that all adults strength train at least twice a week.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...91743516300160





.

[SGTJones]

I agree. And I know there are some that will focus on the "attenuated decrease" remark from moderate to vigorous exercise and rationalize that there is no need for more vigorous exercise.

However, to your point, as I said I agree; the importance of more vigorous exercise is to build up bone, but also connective tissues and to create as many blood vessels as possible, it's more effective in lowering the blood pressure and HR and generally help in building up many parts of the body where moderate exercise cannot do, regardless if it's weightlifting, cycling, running, hiking -- not to mention that it takes far less time for the same benefits of moderate exercise...I see this a key to not only building a healthy body, but also having a healthier body further in life (not speaking to life span, rather quality of life).

Yep totally agreed. There's a lot of good evidence that says a weight-lifting routine is one of the best things a person can do to maintain their quality of life and avoid age-related issues like osteoporosis and dementia.