Slashdot Mirror
The Least Amount of Exercise Needed To Extend Life
Toe, The writes "Of particular concern to couch potatoes, gamers, and anyone who spends an inordinate amount of time sitting and staring at a screen is how little exercise can I do and still receive a benefit. A new study entitled 'Minimum amount of physical activity for reduced mortality and extended life expectancy: a prospective cohort study' answers this important question. The conclusion: 92 minutes of moderate activity a week can extend your life by three years."
Obviously they meant 42.
...in which I'll have to exercise? Oh, let my sweet death come.
I have some questions about this study, but I'm not going to read the article. It seems like too much work.
Just my luck: I've been doing ninety ONE minutes a week all along. Shit.
Good job I love exercise, so I don't have to go around calculating the bare minimum.
When you do nothing, really nothing you die three years earlier than the couch potato next to you who exercises 92 minutes a week. This can easily be achieved by walking fast to the pizza place 10 minutes away instead of calling for delivery. ;-)
By my calculations, as long as I live less that 330 years, this will pay off!
... does masturbation count? Because I'm going to live forever at this point.
If I exercise for 92 min a week for the next 38 years I get to live an extra 3 years.
So if I total it up, I am doing 3.32 days of exercise a year to gain 25 days of life expectancy. Ok, so it seems like a deal.
Though I could just spend those 3.3 days playing the latest game, much more enjoyable and loosing 3 years is not that big of a deal.
How can one call himself a scientist and make statements like this?
"The conclusion: 92 minutes of moderate activity a week can extend your life by three years.""
It's obvious that it could only be result of very indirect studies.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
If it's about the same as walking to and from the bus stop for 15 minutes each day, then I can rest easy knowing I might live 3 years longer than if I didn't.
Don't forget that your quality of life will likely improve with exercise.
Paraphrasing Pirates of the Silicon Valley, BIll Gates makes the claim that lifespan is based on how we spend the finite number of heartbeats in a lifetime.
If you look good enough from the neck down (from all the exercise) the previous 50 some years will be that much more enjoyable.
One obvious question to ask for this sort of thing is if it is worth it. If the time increase to lifespan was less than the time necessary to spend exercising then this would be worth it. Assume a normal life span of 80 years. And assume that the exercise takes 120 minutes (showering off, changing clothes etc. pushes one above 92 minutes. I'm assuming 120 here because that makes it exactly two hours which makes the arithmetic easier). Then with 52 weeks a year, one gets that this takes up a total of 80*52*2/24, which is slightly under a year. So even if you are completely neutral to exercise and can't get any nice thinking done during it, the total delta is 2 years. So this does look like it makes sense. There's a slight argument that using time up when one is younger isn't good if the later years aren't as high quality. I'm not sure how much validity that argument has but there's some evidence that exercising keeps one healthier for the last few decades of life, so this probably increases the quality. Overall verdict: Exercising seems to make sense.
It's hard enough to find a girlfriend. It's even harder to find one that wants to have sex 92 times a week.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
An interesting concept to note: TFA mentions they found it extends life expectancy by three years. With this, I would argue that the exercise was found to "extend your life" by more than three years.
For example, imagine I said there was a process to delay "old age" deaths by 50 years. Does your life expectancy go up 50 years? No, it goes up far less than that due to other types of death that can occur.
It's all semantics and statistics anyway, but I just thought I'd point out they were using life expectancy values.
...you could ignore the whole issue and gamble that a pill that has the same effect will be invented soon.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Depends on what kind of animal is chasing you...
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
considering how varied the population is in weight, mental condition and eating habits. From the abstract, I can't really see how they addressed that. I'm overweight, and am currently working to get rid of the spare tire attached to my waist. I've found that by trying to exercise more, I find myself getting out more, and spending more time with friends and family. In fact, going on hikes, walks, runs and bikes with friends and family has improved my life more than the three years is worth, and my day to day mood has vastly improved. Hell, my love life has even gotten better. The abstract doesn't really say too much about this, but I suspect there's a lot more to longevity than just physical attributes. I have no data to support that, of course, but I have a feeling that going out, exercising and socializing with people certainly couldn't hurt one's life expectancy. Even if you don't get those three years, the ones you have will certainly be more enjoyable.
The full pdf paper is slightly more informative. While the summary would seem to indicate that chances of mortality decreases linearly with increasing exercise, from Figure 2 of the chart it seems like after 100 minutes a day the benefits taper off. So it seems like 15 minutes a day is good,150 is overdoing it. http://www.natap.org/2011/HIV/PIIS0140673611607496.pdf
They also note that ex-smokers exercised more than the norm, so that might be contributing to the decrease in cancer rates (correlation, not causation). Probably very imp. considering the study was done in Taiwan.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
I know we are geeks here and "supposed" to hate exercise, but exercise is great. It helps cognitive health(http://www.fi.edu/learn/brain/exercise.html, http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/0216exercise.html) and emotional health (http://news.illinois.edu/news/04/0216exercise.html). Increasing your agility and endurance can save your life in a dangerous situation.
It doesn't have to be boring either. You can practice martial arts or swordsmanship (and what helps you get into a Song of Fire and Ice better than being able to cook some of the dishes and work on swordplay in between books?). Sex counts too (http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/health/sex/better-sex-guide/sex-positions-that-double-as-exercise/), you can get pretty creative in the bedroom. You can grab a bunch of like minded friends, and invent games yourself.
I've heard this expressed in terms of weekly calories expended in heart-raising exercise, i.e 2000. Walking, running, biking (3x miles), etc. doesnt matter so much as long that many calories are burned. Neither whether its compressed into a couple of long sessions or divided into many ten-minute mini-sessions. In fact it recommended to choose the most pleasant form of cardio to you so can you can continue to do to for 50 or 70 more years.
This data comes from the "grandfather" of the exercise boom Dr. Kenneth Cooper. He wrote a book called Aerobics in 1968 promoting endurance exercise over the then-popular calesthetics. He ignited the running boom by putting the on top of his 60-point-week exercise classification system. Running gets you there in the shortest time.
Above 2000 exercise calories a week the situation gets murkier. You get additional, but diminishing longevity results up to about 5000 calories (50 miles walking/running). After that the main effect is improve sports performance, not longevity. Dr. Ken even claims that too much exercise may create more oxidative waste than the body can eliminate and then decrease longevity. But this is a minority opinion and irritates the ultra people.
... unless you're enjoying the exercise, or are rich enough to retire. Here's why: Assume you spend 8+ hours per day sleeping, eating, and bathing, and work 40 hours a week (plus travel to/from work). There are 8760 hours per year, of that at least 2,920 hours are sleeping, eating & bathing. Working 40hr/s & 50 weeks (2 weeks vacation) = 2,000 hours. So, at best, you net 3,840 hours/yr, and realistically, closer to 2,500-3,000. Then you spend time shopping, doing housework, being sick, etc.
So, if you're enjoying the extra exercise, or you can afford to retire, then that extra hour per week might be worth it, but if not, put in your 92 minutes and call it good. Remember, you read it hear first.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
It makes me feel good doing it. It makes me look better. It reduces colds and headaches. And its fun at times. Increased longevity is a bonus, but not a deal-maker.
As a fitness professional who has worked with a countless number of people at different fitness levels in different stages of their lives, trying to quantify the number of years gained with exercise completely misses the point and is deceiving.
Truthfully exercise will probably net someone little to no extra years in their life. However the quality of those years is where the significant difference will be. If someone wishes to be physically active with their body well into their elder years, then exercise will allow for that. However if someone is content being completely inactive, then exercise will provide little benefit to them and honestly they should just not bother with it.
Diet will have a far bigger impact on actual life expectancy than exercise ever could.
Breath in, breath out.
Put fork in food. Lift fork to mouth. Chew.
Walk to bathroom. Do my business. Flush toilet.
Failure to do any of these on a regular basis is very likely to shorten my life significantly.
--
Oh, why flush the toilet? To not get killed by the guy who comes in after me.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I am well into the clear then, that and with a standing desk arrangement I'll have a long and productive life.
Just seems like a waste. I'm smoking and extremely obese. Why would I want to live longer?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Depends on your reaction to trolls.
Throw a 20"+ CRT across the room? That's 5 minutes, not including the time used to broom up the pieces.
Punch through an LCD? Sorry but that's half a minute (+1 minute if it's a glass screen). You can increase the activity level by standing and breaking the screen across a knee.
Write a snarky replay? Sadly that is negative 30 seconds plus the time to write (ttw) it out: -(30s + ttw)
I'm willing to bet that on average, the people that fit in the workout group also ate healthier food, didn't smoke, and kept their excess weight down. If you completely ignored the workout aspect (or selected a test group where they were all equally inactive) and looked at just eating and smoking habits and body fat percentages, would you find the same three year difference? (Rhetorical; I know the answer.)
Who cares how long you eventually live. Take a look at someone approaching old age after a lifetime of inactivity versus someone who exercised regularly and tell me which one you'd rather be. I see many folks in their late 60s and early 70s who can't stand up straight and for whom every movement is painful, who get winded doing the simplest of activities, etc. They can't play actively with their grandkids or even walk through a supermarket without assistance. Meanwhile, I see plenty of folks who have gotten regular exercise who have far, far higher quality of life well into old age. They might die at the exact same age, but I know which one I'd rather be. That said, it seems that being overweight is the single most important factor when talking about physical mobility in old age - based on my very casual observations. Being fat will have you riding a scooter around your supermarket while folks 10 years older than you amble on by quite comfortably. And you just don't see many fat people who are well into their 80s and 90s, probably for good reason.
This was my facebook status days ago. people need to quit being fat as fuck
According to the summary, each additional 15 minutes of exercise reduces mortality risk by 4%. There's no cap, no diminishing returns? So if I exercise 5 1/2 hours a day, I can reduce my risk to zero?
The methodology of these studies are always so questionable too. A - it's self-report. B - it's just a tenuous association. I don't see any mention of controls for diet, stress, sleep, etc. I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe people who exercise more eat better too.
Would you please, in the future, refrain from using the cliché that gamers don't get exercise?
Thank you.
(captcha: smelly. :D )
...you get old when you become less active.
Statements like that quoted in the summary are pure silliness. On average, exercise will tend to extend life expectancy, but that is certainly not the whole story. Plenty of exercise, proper nutrition, and stimulating thought will improve quality of life for many years leading up to death. Those years are the time to enjoy the life you have.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
This is an epidemiological study, so it cannot establish cause and effect. It's highly plausible that people whom live longer also exercise more, because of other factors (such as being physically able to). There's also many different types of exercise with totally different metabolic effects, which this study doesn't isolate. Moreover, it's only capable of looking at the range of activity present in the population it's looking at (relatively sedentary people in Taiwan). Personally, I think if you're going to do exercise for the explicit purpose of improving health and extending life, you shouldn't focus on replicating the amount of time spent exercising by the longest lived people in this group. There's a lot more information you can learn from also (biochemical understanding, exercise physiology studies, other epidemiological studies of other populations, etc.) I suspect spending less time doing high intensity exercise (such as the 8 minutes/week of heavy weight lifting to total failure as explained and justified biochemically in great detail in the great book "Body by Science") is much more likely to extend life span, and prevent metabolic syndrome (the main cause of death in developed countries) with much less time commitment. Not to mention that it will make you ****ing ripped with significant measurable weekly increases in strength that continue for a year or two. High intensity exercise (like weight lifting or sprinting) can use up most of your glycogen reserves quickly, and with little chance of injury in a way that almost no other exercise can. This improves insulin sensitivity (one of the main problems of metabolic syndrome) significantly for weeks after the exercise.
What if I only want to extend my life by 2 years? Why is 3 years the quantum, here?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Did they factor in how much of that extra 3 years is due to the time dilation of moving closer to the speed of light than a sedentary person?
I just can't take this study seriously if they're going to gloss over obvious issues like this one.
...but the authors also calculated the least publishable unit, and found that with just 92 minutes of work per week they can extend their funding by three years.
Opinions were like kittens, I was giving them away.
The *only* benefit I have gained by moving where I have has been that I can now bicycle to and from work. While I have considered that it may somehow extend my life in some way, I am often more concerned about how it might shorten it. ;)
Seriously, people. I have ridden a roller-coaster of experiments on myself mixing diet and exercise and there is little to be gained through exercise. Sure, you need to keep your heart healthy and your circulatory system working well, but as far as I am concerned, that is the only real benefit of regular exercise. If you want to get or keep the weight down, nothing influences that more than diet.
Last year, I went on low-carb and heavy cycling. Once I reached my target weight and size, I went back to normal eating (which in all honesty isn't "good" eating) and I maintained my cycling. Before long, I was gaining weight and my pants were feeling tighter.... and I NEVER stopped cycling. (I do about 10 miles a day minimum... somewhere between 40 and 70 minutes each day depending on traffic and weather)
So every time I hear something about exercise without mention of diet, I have to shake my head. And you don't have to go low-carb to diet either... you can drop meat and greasy foods and push vegetables. (Just don't mix fats with carbs... one or the other, but not both) But since this study was done in Taiwan, I doubt they have a horrible obesity rate there and that they eat better than we do in the US, so it's probably a non-issue in this case.
Tonight, I'm going to exercise for 92 minutes. In 2.9 years, I'll again exercise for 92 minutes. Just do it.
> "92 minutes of moderate activity a week can extend your life by three years."
Eternal life!
Yes!
We'll need to have sex 46 times this week.
I have come to the conclusion that by large and far the average person's goal in life is to spend ZERO minutes per week doing anything even remotely resembling work they don't have to do, and by "don't have to do" I mean "that they're not getting paid cash money to do". There is absolutely nothing you can do to externally motivate people to exercise. Even pointing a gun at them and making it clear you'll use it on them is only temporary, and even then I'm sure some people would rather take the bullet. Motivation to exercise must come from within, and reasoning like "you'll live longer", "you'll look better", "you'll feel better in the long run", "you'll be healthier in the long run", and "you'll be considered more attractive by the opposite sex" are never enough and can even be counterproductive in the long run ("attracting a mate" is eventually self-defeating, once you get what you want, so much for your motivation!).
I'm already aware of how much heat I'm going to get for calling out the majority of the people in the world like this, and I don't really care, I'm just calling it like I see it. Go right ahead and moderate me down to "-1, Troll" all you like; it won't change my opinion or invalidate anything I just said.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
It gets better--following their math, 92 minutes a week gives a 14% reduction in mortality from all causes, and every additional 15 minutes gives an additional 4%. there's no point of diminishing returns identified. So, if you exercise 7 hours a week, you become immortal.
Not if someone who exercises 8 hours per week takes your head!
This could mean that persons with a body capable of endure 3 extra years are more willing to do exercise .-
Do 16oz curls and monkey wrestling count?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
It gets better--following their math, 92 minutes a week gives a 14% reduction in mortality from all causes, and every additional 15 minutes gives an additional 4%.
Clearly, it's not a linear scale. Also, this is a reduction in mortality. Life expectancy did not increase 14%, it increased 3 years which is about 4%.
It means if you exercise, the length of time you are in a wheelchair or in pain due to insufficient muscle mass (eg. chronic back pain, or chronic joint pain, etc.) is greatly reduced. Instead of a slow, painful decline leading to death spreading over last 20 years of your life, your life ends much more abruptly. For example, you die from complications to some cold virus while you were fine just a week ago.
Exercise is about quality of life, not about its duration.
The study doesn't say that 92 minutes of exercise a week is the minimum necessary to extend life. It says that all groups in the study that exercised at all showed extended life when compared to the inactive group, and the average weekly exercise duration of the study group with the lowest amount of exercise was 92 minutes. Whoop-de-do. Exercise is good for you. Who knew?
Quality of life is more important to me. I don't exercise for the extra three years, that's just a bonus.
ayottesoftware.com
Young, aren't you?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
The real questions needing to be answered are
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
I'm reminded of two expressions (sort of polar opposites).
1. Living well doesn't make you live longer, it just makes it seem longer.
2. Eubie Blake - at his 100th birthday - "If I'd have known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself"...
3 years for all that exercise ? screw it
"The conclusion: 92 minutes of moderate activity a week can extend your life by three years."
Which is bollocks of course. The only thing that can be said is that 92 minutes a week increases the average life expectancy of a population of sufficient size by three years. What the result of this exercise is on any given individual is completely unknown.
Also, what's the standard deviation for this number? I am of the opinion that everybody who argues a case using some average number without providing the accompanying standard deviation should be summarily executed. An average without a std dev is worse than useless.
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
Does it include masturbation ?
I must spend that long wanking
Varicose veins.
Good Looking Corpse
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1990-08-07/
For more extremeness: run 8 miles to work, code at standing desk all day, run 8 miles back. Use beer as calorie replacement. As a result of this, I freak out when my body fat gets to 8%. I don't know how overweight people manage to do anything, I'd be too stressed by how weird everything felt. In that way it's almost a respect thing, but it's not a place I'd like to be myself haha.
...which is a good thing in itself. But no amount of physical exercise, health food, etc. can alter your genetically coded individual life expectancy. That's one of the great lies of our times. Shortening your life on the other hand is easy - motorcycling, drugs abuse (including alcohol & burgers), becoming a soldier in Afghanistan...
Indeed. Standing desk. Proper diet an a minimum of exercise for the nerds.
But... the future refused to change.
And we can't forget the genetic factor. The men in my family on my paternal side. have regularly lived to late 90's no matter if they drank or smoked or not. My father smoked and drank to excess and lived to 98. His father did neither and hit 99. And so it goes.
But, what quality of life are you extending into? Drooling all over yourself and increasing your Depends change frequency for an extra three years could suck! Call me when you can tack on the extra three years at 21.
I teach group fitness classes at the gym. Actually, at four of them.
There is no greater motivation to work out than to enjoy it, and if you find a good instructor and fun, vigorous class, you will stop thinking of exercise as something you have to do, and start looking forward to it as something you get to do.
If you try a class and don't like it, then try another one until you do. Good instructors keep the format evergreen and ever-changing, and the music fresh. They engage the class the way an emcee engages an audience. It's not about the workout, it's about the experience.
Be sure to pick a class where the scenery is good, too. No kidding, that can be immensely motivating. After 7,000 classes, it still is for me. :)
Also, pick a class that's challenging. Not overwhelming, but definitely hard. I learned that early on - people come back again and again when they know they will be challenged. A successful regime of exercise provides a sense of accomplishment over time, a sense that one has taken back control. It's heady. Plus, it reliably provides stress relief each time you do it. Finally, working out in group classes provides easy avenues to meeting women who are a significant cut above the usual fare at bars, etc.
To a certain point, working out doesn't cost time, either. You won't use the time you "save" by skipping exercise, you'll fritter it away. But if you exercise, you'll get that gym hour back through increased energy, efficiency, better sleep, and sharper thinking. Your mood will be better, too, as well as your self-confidence.
There is no downside. Find a way to socialize your workouts.
You made my day. Seriously.
So imagine if you actually instead of doing 93 minutes over a 172 hour week, you did actually more like 10 hours overall.....wow...just imagine....