Slashdot Mirror
Treadmill Performance Predicts Mortality
An anonymous reader writes: Cardiologists from Johns Hopkins have published an analysis of exercise data that strongly links a patient's performance on a treadmill to their risk of dying. Using data from stress tests of over 58,000 people, they report: "[A]mong people of the same age and gender, fitness level as measured by METs and peak heart rate reached during exercise were the greatest indicators of death risk. Fitness level was the single most powerful predictor of death and survival, even after researchers accounted for other important variables such as diabetes and family history of premature death — a finding that underscores the profound importance of heart and lung fitness, the investigators say." The scoring system is from -200 to +200. People scoring between -100 and 0 face an 11% risk of dying in the next decade. People scoring between -200 and -100 face a 38% risk of death within the next decade. People scoring above zero face only a 3% chance or less.
The walking speed of the grim reaper was calculated in 2011
http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7679
and reviewed in this article
http://www.oandp.com/articles/2014-06_04.asp
Of course , it isn't as high tech as the American version, but walking speed was already known to predict mortality.
What is with this -200 - 200 BS /age, length of time at a given heart rate. Just saying people who score over 100 are a strong indicator is meaningless unless we know how this number is calculated. I am sick of the media hiding science details and math from the public. No wonder why so many people do not trust science, the media covering it treats it like a magic box, that only special people with a PHD can get.
At least tell us how to get these numbers. Is it based in heart rate, O2 levels, speed
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Oh, you are free to not do it, but unless you do the bank, the insurance company won't accept you as a customer. Also, since the HR department doesn't have good data on your health you are sketchy and you won't get a job.
Just click on the link:
The FIT Treadmill Score, calculated as [percentage of maximum predicted heart rate + 12(metabolic equivalents of task) – 4(age) + 43 if female]
they are using an hp calculator which is based off an array of abacus, so it only has -200 beads to +200 beads.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Does the daily treadmill at the office also count?
bickerdyke
strongly links a patient's performance on a treadmill to their risk of dying.
Sounds like the best way to prolong your life is to avoid treadmills
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
No, you have good genes, which is far more important than any exercise, diet, or lifestyle choice you make.
The longest living person on earth was a French woman who died in 1994 or 1996 at age 126. She drank wine and smoked until the last day of her life.
I know a lot of seniors who are pretty healthy on a diet of french fries and diet coke.
Genes are everything as far as health and longevity goes, but nobody can sell you those (yet..). Thus you don't see any ads or research that puts a positive spin on genes like you see for gym memberships, food supplements, and the latest fad diets.
Unless you were doing the treadmill dance of OK, GO.
Then it's 100% risk of death in the next 10 seconds.
I, for one, am shocked to find out that smoking is harmful to your health, and that high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity and lack of exercise might lead to an early death.
They should win the goddamn Nobel prize.
Fit people live longer? Wow, what a surprise.
But why a threadmill? This can also be measured by running, swimming, playing football or a persons ability to catch small horses.
Runnung on a treadmill?!
You say that, but someone already thought of that.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I presume you mean 183.
The paper is paywalled but assuming they are using 220-age as MHR:
183 is 105% of MHR at 45.
Running on a treadmill has MET of 7-8 (Wikipedia)
105+8*12-4*45=21. i.e. your score is positive which puts you in the 3% chance of dying in the next decade group.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
We already knew that healthier people have a smaller chance of dying, that's basically the definition of being healthy.
So this study only shows health and fitness are related.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Communism only relates to the way you organize your economy.
The point of this research is probably to allow doctors to make better estimates as to when a patient might die.
Capitalism can be just as bad as communism if you don't regulate the economy. You need some of both.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
Spriometry is used by respirologists to basically measure how much air you can suck in and then blow out (among other parameters like lung inflation, exhale velocity, etc.). It was essentially invented around 1846 by John Hutchinson who believed its best use would be by the insurance industry as this volume was strongly correlated to premature death -- the less air you can blow out, the less time you have left! Hence the name for this quantity that we still use in medicine today: vital capacity.
"1846 The water spirometer measuring vital capacity was developed by a surgeon named John Hutchinson. He invented a calibrated bell, inverted in water, which was used to capture the volume of air exhaled by a person. John published his paper about his water spirometer and the measurements he had taken from over 4,000 subjects,[2] describing the direct relationship between vital capacity and height and inverse relationship between vital capacity with age. He also showed that vital capacity does not relate to weight at any given height. He also used his machine for the prediction of premature mortality. He coined the term vital capacity, which was claimed as a powerful prognosis for heart disease by Framingham study. He believed that his machine should be used as an acturial predictions for companies selling life insurances"
Hey mate, spare a sig?
As long as you can do better than a police officer, you're okay.
So 1/5 of their scale is already offset-ted depending on gender. That makes me rise an eyebrow : it should be a factor, not an offset...
You don't understand statistics
You can't outrun a radio or a drone, son.
Or does the Heisenberg principle not apply on treadmills?
Place something witty here
There is an old test known as the Schneider Index which was used by the US Navy for divers and pilots in the 1940s. An old movie called "Dive Bomber" shows details of how the test was done at the time. The test ended the flying careers for many pilots at the time if their score decreased much. It turns out that the guys who did best in the test were the ones most likely to pass out on dive bombing runs. The Schneider Index uses reclining heart rate, blood pressure with standing and then rapid activity for about 30 seconds and then factoring in increase in pulse, BP and the time to return to normal.
In these fitness tests they monitor blood pressure and ECG and will stop you if your blood pressure gets too high or the ECG shows that your heart does not get enough oxygen anymore. For that reason persons can easily overestimate both maximum MET and maximum heart rate. People can reach higher running speeds and heart rates but will put their heart in danger by doing so.
Jan
I really hate it when people don't use percentage as a decimal, but it still beets the IRS "Combine" algebraic operator.
I get 73 from a recent stress test. Who hoo, Still Alive! Wife still kicks my ass with a 130 though.
I really hate it when people don't use percentage as a decimal, but it still beets the IRS "Combine" algebraic operator.
I get 73 from a recent stress test. Who hoo, Still Alive! Wife still kicks my ass with a 130 though.
For a guy who hates mistakes in number formats, you seem to have a very relaxed attitude towards spelling homonyms correctly.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You are doing it wrong. The idea (with Bruce Protocol) is that it should take you 10 minutes to get up to your maximum; if you go longer that is better, shorter is worse.
A fit body is more ready for a nasty surprise. If you aren't very fit, you may end up as a freak heart attack statistic. No one may even know what really killed you.
It's all a mix of seemingly random events with the inclusion of at least one element that's under your control.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That -200 +200 is in there because 200 bpm is pretty much a humans maximum heart rate. So this is a test of how long it takes for you to reach your maximum heart rate and then based on age how close the rate is to your predicted rate.
Genes are a factor but not as great as you like them to be. The I have bad Genes argument is a copout towards working towards a better life. Your environment, has a major effect as well, and you have luck too. Changing your environment helps your odds.
Lets say everytime you smoke a cigarette you have a 1 in 500,000 chance of getting lung cancer. Lets say your genes make you more resistant so you may have 1 in 600,000 chance instead. So if you have good genes and you smoke a packs of cigarettes a day that is 20 chances in that 1 in 600,000 a day. If you have the average genes, and you don't smoke then you may get 1 chance every week from second hand smoke.
The evidence of the person who lived a long life despite having a risk factors may be due to just dumb luck, combined with other positive lifestyle choices not mentioned to get the overall odds up.
Also what you may call a bad Gene isn't necessarily a bad gene, but they are designed for a life style that we are not living.
There are people who keep on eating junk food and stay skinny, their body has a high metabolism. With our culture that seems like a good thing, however for these people if they are late for their meal or cannot eat, they merely go into a panic, their body had used up more energy then they took in, and they just used that energy for silly things, such as shaking their leg while sitting, or creating more body heat. Then you have someone with a slower metabolism, that means they will be tend to be heavier, and store extra fat, this extra fat can cause health issues. However if they are unable to eat for a while they are not in such a shock. Now if you have a slow metabolism, and you need to manage the risks of being fat, then you need to exercise, to force your metabolism to go up for while and burn fat, and/or adjust your diet to insure you are just taking in the amount your body needs.
That Gym membership doesn't change your Genes, but if you use that Gym membership, it will help you work with what your genes had evolved you to do.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Not the A.C. you replied to, but here I go...
People scoring between -100 and 0 face an 11% risk of dying in the next decade. People scoring between -200 and -100 face a 38% risk of death within the next decade. People scoring above zero face only a 3% chance or less.
Maybe it should be...
People scoring between -100 and 0 face an 89% risk of living in the next decade. People scoring between -200 and -100 face a 62% risk of living within the next decade. People scoring above zero face only a 97% chance or less of living.
Peer-reviews on everything I write below are greatly appreciated. I want to make sure I understand this equation.
io9 has a pretty down-to-earth explanation of the equation:
FIT Treadmill Score = %MPHR + 12(METS) - 4(age) + 43(if female)
You can get your MPHR for your age here. I found a chart of METS here for various exercises.
So, if I'm understanding this correctly. If I reach a 160 heart rate out of 179.0 MPHR predicted for my 41 years of age while running 12 minute miles worth 8.5 METS. My score would be:
83.7 + 12(8.5) - 4(41) = 21.7
The same heart rate for my age running 8 minute miles:
83.7 + 12(8.5) - 4(41) = 69.7
If I am understanding this correctly, it really looks like you could easily improve your score with a few lifestyle choices (push yourself harder when you work out, eat healthier). This equation could be a great metric for people concerned about their health
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
The study is much better, and the link much stronger, than the foolishness about how sitting increases your risk of death no matter whether or not you exercise.
Didn't RTFA, but... Age is a pretty big part of this formula. If you're 50, thats a hit of -200 points, which is half of the entire scale. So basically we've discovered that old people are more likely than young people to die in the next decade?
Right, because capitalist insurance companies would never abuse this kind of info to deny coverage.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
This would be true if everyone died by getting T-boned. A lot of people die due to things like heart disease. In fact, a lot more people die of heart disease than traffic accidents.
So no, it's not futile at all.
Have we got numbers on how many people got injured/killed by treadmills on a yearly basis? I guess those are for the 3% for people scoring above 0.
No, they knew that already and took it into account when they made their formula. Then they added some other predictors, e.g. being male (already known), being able to do a strenuous task, and your heart rate being able to clock up to a decent rate.
The latter two are the new ones.
Of course, this is slashdot, and if you incorporate any past knowledge into your new work, that work can't possibly be new or informative.
Don't we already know that female's are more likely to live longer with no clear identifiable cause beyond they are female?
Fitness level was the single most powerful predictor of death
Who'd a thunk?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This bottle of snakeoilism will cure all your economic ills!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
That's odd. Everyone who took it had a 100% chance of dying at some point.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You are basically right,but to complie with the test correctly you would need to find you MET doing the following.
Calculating your own score.
So how exactly is it done? The test consists of three-minute segments that increase in speed and incline. In the study, people exercised until they were fatigued, felt chest discomfort, or until a clinician saw something suggesting lack of blood flow to the heart, says Ahmed. Below is an example of the stages of incline and speed from the Bruce Protocol:
Stage 1 1.7 mph/10% grade/5 METs
Stage 2 2.5 mph/12% grade/7 METs
Stage 3 3.4 mph/14% grade/10 METs
Stage 4 4.2 mph/16% grade/13 METs
Stage 5 5.0 mph/18% grade/15 METs
Stage 6 5.5 mph/20% grade/18 METs
Stage 7 5.5 mph/22% grade/20 METs
Comment removed based on user account deletion
when does this chart end?
i'm literally going to the gym in like 3 mins to run 10 miles at a 9.0mph.
i have this ? about stress tests generally
to get it down in 3 minute increments they are going to have to max that machine.
Thank you. This is just what I needed to know. I can't wait to try it out at the gym tonight. : )
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
I lost about 95 lbs (in 4 months)
That's not remotely healthy and barely even possible. To lose 95 pounds of fat in 120 days, you would need to generate a daily caloric deficit of over 2700 calories, which is beyond a starvation diet. If your RMR was 2000 calories per day, you ran 5 miles per day and you ate a holodomor diet, for four months, you could maybe approach that assuming your organs didn't shut down in the meantime, but you would be shedding as much (or more) muscle as fat in that case, which is hardly ideal.
The FIT Treadmill Score, calculated as [percentage of maximum predicted heart rate + 12(metabolic equivalents of task) – 4(age) + 43 if female], ranged from 200 to 200 across the cohort, was near normally distributed, and was found to be highly predictive of 10-year survival
I demand equal life expectancy for equal fitness!
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Stephen Hawking. I wonder what his score was ten years ago.
So it wasn't a random sample. It was people who had visited the doctor/hospital with complaints of chest pain, shortness of breath, fainting or dizziness. Well right there, you'd think the ones who were further along in a disease causing those symptoms when they first visited a doctor would score worse at the treadmill test. And they'd have a greater risk of death in the next few years since they were further along the illness.
I assure you, in my line of work not only does HR not want care about your long term viability, it sure as hell doesn't want you taking time off work* to be at the gym. They'll happily juice your husk until it can no longer serve the shareholder and toss it out in the new Environmentally Friendly (TM) Compost Heap. Given the endless legions of unemployed and the opportunity to tap the limitless H1-B market, they're guaranteed to have employees!
*By time off work I mean any point in a 24 hour day.
Luckily, the one-two punch of HIPAA and ACA ("Obamacare") made what you describe illegal in the US, so that's only an option in other countries unless one or both of those laws change. And HIPAA isn't under attack by butthurt Republicans.
HIPAA made it illegal. The ACA made it mandatory.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Don't we already know that female's are more likely to live longer with no clear identifiable cause beyond they are female?
This is unfair discrimination against males. If women can demand equal salaries, we should be able to demand equal lifespan.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
It still seems awfully suspicious that their carefully constrained +/-200 range has an age multiplier of precisely 4. This smells like the use of BMI to gauge individuals when it was only ever meant to be an expedient way to measure populations.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
daily caloric deficit of over 2700 calories, which is beyond a starvation diet. If your RMR was 2000 calories per day
36 year old, 170 cm, 111 kg, male individual has an RMR of about 2000 calories per day.
Running "about 30 miles a week, swimming for about one hour and a half twice a week and doing all sort of exercise" raises his daily calorie needs to about 3800 calories per day.
If he's also working a physical job, that's about 4200 calories per day.
That's a daily difference of 1800-2200 calories from exercise alone.
Diet-vise he could drop bread for one meal, or skip breakfast.
And that's without knowing how many calories he was taking in "after military service".
Army was feeding him AT LEAST 3250 calories per day, possibly up to 6000-7000 calories per day if he was stationed in a high altitude location in Afghanistan.
And that's not counting snacks. Or fighting stress with food.
He probably came home and continued eating 5000+ calories per day.
There's plenty room there to drop all that weight with exercise and moderate calorie restriction.
Particularly for someone used to military standards of exercise.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
From what I read, they looked at people who took a stress test, and the ones who did well tended to live longer. What I'm wondering is, were the ones who did well people who were exercising diligently to get there?
There's a presumption that the people who didn't do well, if they worked out and lived healthier lives generally so that they improved their scores, would automatically be as healthy as the ones who were already doing well. But were the ones who did well from the getgo doing well because they had been exercising etc?
I'm not trying to say that exercise and eating right isn't a good idea. I'm just thinking that what is measured isn't only the result of a good lifestyle but also something more intrinsic, maybe genetic.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
Oprah Winfrey claimed her weight loss is all fat, in practice it is mainly lean weight and that's less calories dense. I switched from 700kcal to 300kcal deficit a day as one could yield 50% of fat loss and the other 90%
MPHR (Max Predicted Heart Rate) = 220 - age.
-- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
3% of people scoring above zero have a risk of dying in the next decade. Not 3% of people score above zero, although that might be true among slashdotters.
Only I can judge you.
So you're saying that a human is more likely to die with a weak hearth and weak lungs, as compared to weak fingers. Interesting. I guess vital organs really are vital.
ADHD much?
Only I can judge you.
You're somewhat delusional if you believe this was pure fat loss. I regard it as a disservice to give people the impression that this kind of fat loss is either possible or healthy.
At the level of exercise required to sustain a caloric balance of -2700 calories per day over four months, the body would become severely protein challenged. Even converting fat to energy increases protein demand, as those organelles burn hard and wear out.
What happens with formerly fit individuals who then become obese is that these individuals actually have extremely large reserves of skeletal muscle (obese people tend to have extremely strong legs for practical reasons, it just doesn't seem like it as hefting their own body weight consumes most of their strength). As this kind of person goes into an endurance exercise program, he or she actually needs far less muscle mass than they have starting out.
If his story is true, I bet he lost a great deal of skeletal muscle mass in addition to a lot of fat. The muscle that remained would be extremely fit and efficient, but less strong.
A similarly obese person without the muscular reserve would be flirting with death in attempting to replicate these figures. If his story is even true. And if it is true, why did he quit and put all those pounds back on again? Could it be that his body figured out that the stress of the program was unreasonable to begin with?
Did he actually measure his body composition before and after, or did he just take a weight difference and presume that anyone who exercises that much couldn't possibly have shed any muscle mass?
I don't feel like digging up particulars I last read five years ago, but I distinctly do not recall having ever read anything credible which suggests this level of weight loss can be achieved on a pure fat-burning basis.
The statistics are accurate. Dead people score zero METs.
It seems to me that this test predicts mortality primarily because heart disease is currently the #1 cause of death in America. So if you measure cardiovascular health, statistically you're also going to be successful in predicting mortality. But my excellent heart health doesn't seem likely to stop me from dying of cancer or ALS or any of those other things. All it says is that heart disease won't kill me early. And maybe that, since the others develop more slowly, I'll live a few years longer before dying in some other way.
why did he quit and put all those pounds back on again? Could it be that his body figured out that the stress of the program was unreasonable to begin with?
Reading helps. Really. It does.
4 years ago, after a break up,I stopped doing exercise and I rapidly gained weight.
At the level of exercise required to sustain a caloric balance of -2700 calories per day over four months, the body would become severely protein challenged.
Did I hear someone say that he did it without eating protein? No?
OH... I get it! You are imagining some weird scenario in your head where he is eating grass or glass or something.
Whatever the case may be - protein gets ingested.
do not recall having ever read anything credible which suggests this level of weight loss can be achieved on a pure fat-burning basis.
Don't fret. You clearly don't remember reading the original post either.
Or you would realize that the whole "pure fat burning" thing exists only in YOUR head.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens