The closest thing to a wonder drug is exercise

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/upshot/why-you-should-exercise-no-not-to-lose-weight.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=MostViewed&version=Full&src=mv&WT.nav=MostViewed

by hvo • 10 years ago

93 104 10 years ago

nytimes.com

nibs• 10 years ago

Move more, eat mostly vegetables, sleep enough.

sandworm1018• 10 years ago

That is the mantra, but there is debate. Exercise puts the onus on the individual. So it's a great cop out for other problems. It's not the extra sugar they are seeking into our diets, it that's we don't exercise. I remember one pitiful interview with a MacDonald's rep who claimed that their food was healthy so long as customers exercised well enough. That's too much of an easy, cheap, answer.

Imho the days of answering every health problem with exercise alone should end. We must acknowledge the approach has failed and we need to deal with the wider environment impacting individual choice. That means healthier foods, but I'd support tax deductions (preferably credits) for exercise-related costs. Make the money back with a tax on unhealthy foods/things, as we did with cigarettes.

tracker15• 10 years ago

I'm not completely sure there... In the end, the onus is on the consumer to know how many calories they're taking in. That said, I do dislike a lot of the additives/preservatives that are being put into the food supply. Packaging meats in inert gases to preserve color, taste/preservation additives in bread, the widespread use of heavily subsidized and refined/perfumed/died vegetable oils.

First get rid of subsidies... second might be a tax on products containing sugars not in their natural state (okay in whole apples, not in juice, or added to breads/candy/pasteries).

Another large issue is simply education and advertising. Child-targeted advertising works surprisingly well. Also, people assume that "natural sugar" is significantly better for you than refined sugars. Once it's juiced/pureed and/or cooked, it's far more digestible and far more unhealthy than whole fruits.

ryanobjc2• 10 years ago

Comments like this sounds like saying to a depressed person: "have you tried being happy instead?"

In other words, it's pithy, not helpful and sounds smug and condescending.

We should be able to support maximal health in everyone, regardless of if they live the ideal middle class lifestyle that gives them time to exercise, money to afford food, and the many things that go in to a good nights sleep.

Retric5• 10 years ago

For the most part good food costs less than crap food as long as you cook.

r00fus• 10 years ago

Was the parent comment really about "how to talk to depressed people"?

I gather no, it's more like a basic guide to life. Depression is a real thing and requires treatment above & beyond basic exercise/eating/sleep.

tracker15• 10 years ago

A lot of research has shown that you need at least a certain amount of protein, 60-120g/day on average depending on your lean muscle mass. You should have at most about 100g sugars/day. Beyond that, barring a medical condition (diabetes, pku, etc) calories are calories, for the most part. You need some fat (balance is surprisingly important here), and avoiding overly processed/refined foods is generally a good idea.

That said, mostly vegetables, maybe by volume, but if you are counting grains/cerials/starches as a separate category, then mostly wouldn't get you enough calories, and often not enough protein on average. Not to mention those mildly allergic to soy.

In general, the practice of even tracking everything you take in tends to make you very mindful of the calories in everything. Knowing what you should probably be taking in on average in combination with tracking can go a long way. I would suggest getting a variety of foods in to your diet, this should include some vegetables, but the majority of your calories will come from protein, carbs or fats. The sources may be vegetable based, but vegetable fats, specifically refined vegetable oils aren't so great a lot of the time. If you stick to fats/oils that are either cold-pressed or animal based, you're better off.

tracker15• 10 years ago

Also, if you drive everywhere, park at the opposite end of the parking lot... this gives quite a bit of boost to your activity per day. Though harder to do in Phoenix at the end of Jone, when it's in the high 1-teens.

drzaiusapelord• 10 years ago

Wait until we get the pill that does what exercise does. Supposedly, many groups are trying to create a pill off this research:

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2815...

waterphone3• 10 years ago

Just exercise. People are so lazy in that regard it baffles me.

syntheticnature• 10 years ago

Well, should such a pill be created, if the time required to generate money for the pills is less than the time required to exercise at an equivalent level... I mean, heck, I don't think it's at all likely I'll exercise beyond a certain level, but take a pill and poof?

marssaxman2• 10 years ago

What's to be baffled about? Exercise is tiring, time-consuming, and sometimes painful. People generally avoid such activities, absent any overriding motivation.

mikestew3• 10 years ago

Ya know, I used to be in your boat, wondering why folks don't just get off their ass. But it occurred to me that if I didn't actually like running, I don't know what would motivate me to do so. It's like telling people to quit smoking. You don't think they don't already know it's bad for them? But for some reason they keep puffing away.

So we've established that people are lazy, and that "just exercise" would do them wonders (or at least be a lifestyle improvement). And they still don't take the dog for a 30 minute walk. Given that, rather than chastising and feeling superior about our own fitness (for example, I ran ten miles yesterday; mmm, I'm practically marinating in smugness right now), what can we do to get people out the door?

Of course, if I could answer that, I'd be at my book signing and not shouting at the wall on HN.

leblancfg• 10 years ago

I really know nothing about this line of research AT ALL. It's all quite interesting, thanks for linking to it.

Now, the general rule of thumb for drugs is there's no such thing as a free lunch, what are the possible negative outcomes of supplementing those kinases and AMPK substrates? Because obviously their effects wouldn't be limited to influencing the neurotransmitter system exclusively.

melling• 10 years ago

What if that takes several decades? What if that turns out to be a lot harder than we thought. Supposedly can take a lot longer than you expect.

If you had asked scientist how long it would take to cure cancer in the early 1970's, I'm sure they'd have guess 50 years would have been more than enough time.

brahmwg• 10 years ago

Though the pill may be able to simulate the effects of physical exercise, I don't think a pill will supplement the psychological gains from exercise.

Doing something challenging and feeling accomplished, the mental strength you develop from a rigorous training regime can't easily be replicated by a pill... yet

xyience3• 10 years ago

Video games have been filling this niche quite well. I felt a lot more accomplished after mastering Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2 than after I got up to a 315 lb dead lift.

sandworm1018• 10 years ago

No. Youth is the real wonder drug. Exercise is a fallback once that stops being effective.

superplussed• 10 years ago

So true. In my 20s I did drugs and played in bands. In my 40s I build startups and run marathons. There's nothing like "the countdown" to kick your motivation into gear.

sandworm1018• 10 years ago

Im in my 30s now and am very happy to have skipped the 20s drinking/drugs/smoking phase. Too many of my 30-something friends look like 50-somethings. I just had a full eye exam as part of a security clearance thing for a new job. Supposedly my retinas look like a teenager's. The doc chalked it up to a lack of drugs/alcohol. When I was 20 nobody told me that was a thing. They should.

the_watcher3• 10 years ago

Both of these can be true. I'm still relatively young, but when I was much younger (18) and still able to reap all the benefits of being young and reasonably athletic, I went through a rough breakup. Exercise truly was a wonder drug for me, all the way back then.

beamatronic• 10 years ago

I've had a few occasions where I had to perform some strenuous work even when I was unwell, and in most cases, after the physical labor was concluded, I felt almost miraculously better. On one specific occasion I had a migraine type headache that 3 200 mg Advil's wouldn't touch, but then I was in a situation where I had to walk several miles carrying 50 lbs of gear. Headache was gone after a few miles.

the_watcher3• 10 years ago

I've had similar experiences, going back to college when I'd wake up hungover and would sweat it out at the gym. It's pretty rare that I wake up feeling like that anymore, but working out continues to be effective for me whenever I'm not feeling great.

waterphone3• 10 years ago

That has been my experience as well, going hike when sick usually makes me feel much better during and after. I also recently broke a toe but continued to hike on it and found its level of pain much reduced after each hike compared to a day spent not moving around much. Assuming it wasn't my imagination (I could theorize that it felt better after because it felt worse while hiking on it) I imagine walking increases the bloodflow to the area and may assist with healing faster.

dpark6• 10 years ago

Depending on the type and location of the fracture, mobility can aid in healing.

moultano• 10 years ago

"23 and 1/2 hours: What is the single best thing we can do for our health" https://youtu.be/aUaInS6HIGo

hackaflocka• 10 years ago

I skimmed the video and couldn't figure it out -- what is it please?

dpark6• 10 years ago

Exercise. 30 minutes a day. Mild intensity (e.g. walking).

hugh4life2• 10 years ago

I don't like the "diet, not exercise, is the key to weight lose" matra because exercise goals(run a 5k in X minutes, bench press X lbs 6 times) in my experience are the far bigger motivators(though I've never been severely overweight).

tetraodonpuffer• 10 years ago

key and motivation are not the same thing, if you have good genetics you can run fast even if you are overweight, as they say after all, you can't out-exercise a bad diet

hugh4life2• 10 years ago

", if you have good genetics you can run fast even if you are overweight, as they say after all, you can't out-exercise a bad diet"

My entire point is that you won't want to have a bad diet if you're setting serious athletic goals.

johnchristopher• 10 years ago

You might not like it but abs are made in the kitchen. No amount of exercises can balance out a bad diet in the mid and long term.

the_watcher3• 10 years ago

in my experience are the far bigger motivators

While I agree with you that it's a much more compelling motivator, that still doesn't change the actual fact that diet is (oftentimes substantially) more important to weight loss.

basch• 10 years ago

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/22-ThePhysicsDiet.htm

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/33_Gluttony.htm

whack• 10 years ago

I particularly found the following section in the article very compelling.

"Many people will be surprised at how little you need to do to achieve these results. Years ago, in an effort to get in shape, I tried the P90X routine. It proved too hard for me. Later, when I tried Insanity, it beat me so badly that people at work kept asking me if I was ill. Two years ago, I tried P90X3. It was a bit more manageable, but I still couldn’t keep it up.

I’m not alone in thinking that physical activity to improve health should be hard. When I hear friends talk about exercising, they discuss running marathons, participating in cross-fit classes or sacrificing themselves on the altar of Soul Cycle. That misses the point, unfortunately. All of these are way, way more than you need to do to get the benefits I’ve already described.

The recommendations for exercise are 150 minutes per week of moderate intensity physical activity for adults, or about 30 minutes each weekday.

Moderate intensity is probably much less than you think. Walking briskly, at 3 to 4 miles per hour or so, qualifies. So does bicycling slower than 10 miles an hour. Anything that gets your heart rate somewhere between 110 and 140 beats per minute is enough. Even vacuuming, mowing the lawn or actively walking your dog might qualify."

A lot of people abstain from exercise because they think it's "hard" and "scary," when really, 30 minutes of brisk walking to and from the grocery story would do just fine.

ellyagg• 10 years ago

I actually found that part disappointing. I had sent this to my parents before I read to the end and now wish I could take it back. More and more research is pointing to strength being a leading predictor of mortality.

My father has loss of mobility and strength from disuse of his limbs through their entire ranges of motion. Walking and jogging at the rates indicated do almost nothing for this. He walks 4 miles twice a week with my mom, but can barely stand up from the couch. Human walking is very efficient and requires hardly any strength and that through a fractional range of motion.

Walking and jogging is better than not exercising at all, but on the walking and jogging regimen my father has steadily deteriorated in function as he approaches his 70s. His shoulders and knees have stiffened while his muscles are constantly sore from lack of conditioning.

The other problem is the "brisk" qualifier. Walking "briskly" actually takes significant motivation, and involves either subjectivity or more monitoring than people like to do while their walking. People are rationalization engines, and if you give them a way to skirt the essence by being lazy, they will. In my experience, the objectivity of resistance training is more effective.

maxxxxx7• 10 years ago

He should add some basic range of motion exercises. I doubt lifting will help him. Also, walk one mile every day instead of 4 twice a week.

steve_w• 10 years ago

These two articles from the NHS might help:

1) Guidelines for physical exercise for the older generation. 150 minutes of moderate exercise plus strength training on 2 days. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/physical-activity-g...

2) Strength and motion exercises for older people. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/strength-exercises-...

justinator• 10 years ago

<em>The other problem is the "brisk" qualifier. Walking "briskly" actually takes significant motivation, and involves either subjectivity or more monitoring than people like to do while their walking.</em>

I think you're overthinking things. If walking seems to easy, jog. If jogging is too easy, run. If say, running is too hard, run when you can, take breaks by walking. If walking is too easy, you start with standing and doing basic drills in movement.

There's always a level you're at, and something you can use as a goal.

Easiest to not fall to low in what you can do, which is more of a preventative thing, unfortunately for those at a lower level of physical fitness.

lewisl9029• 10 years ago

More and more research is pointing to strength being a leading predictor of mortality.

Can anyone point me to some sources and readings on this topic? I'd love to see some stats on how strength compares to cardio as a proxy for mortality for instance.

maxxxxx7• 10 years ago

That's the problem with all the life optimizing stuff. If they just did some basic stuff people would get 90% of the benefit easily. Instead they go to impossible extremes, fail, and do nothing. I used to teach yoga classes. People would give up "I am not good at this" because they couldn't do some crazy poses after two years. They couldn't see that they felt good and were healthier which is the whole point. Same with meditation.

sandworm1018• 10 years ago

People drop yoga once they realize that the supermodel at the front of the room doesn't look that way because of yoga. After yoga they hit the stairmaster for an hour. Then skip meals. And they are on estrogen supplements, which can increase flexibility in women. Being great at difficult yoga moves is the result, not the process.

dpark6• 10 years ago

People would give up "I am not good at this" because they couldn't do some crazy poses after two years.

This is a really bad example if you're trying to show that people give up too easily because they go to extremes. 2 years before quitting is a long time. 2 years of dedication can reach most reasonable fitness goals. If you follow an exercise regimen for two years and decide it's not for you, then either the exercise regimen is crap or else it's really just not for you.

InclinedPlane• 10 years ago

I really dislike the habit of the culture in the US trying to make exercise a competition, so you get high intensity "brag-worthy" workouts like P90X or cross-fit or what-have-you. The best exercise regime is one you can maintain, which can be as simple as just taking a walk for a bit every few days or some low intensity yoga at home. And those sorts of things have major long-term health benefits, they're vastly better than trying to go hard and injuring yourself or failing to maintain exercise as a regular habit.

grillvogel2• 10 years ago

yep. I just skip my 2nd bus transfer and walk to the office after getting dropped off downtown by the first bus (little under 2 miles each way). only takes a little longer than waiting for and riding the bus, but i get free exercise out of my work commute 2x a day.

sandworm1018• 10 years ago

Unless you are in a polluted city. Only a couple months ago the BBC was reporting that the air in london was so bad as to negate the health benefits of walking, even biking into work. You might loose a little weight, but you aren't going to be living any longer having inhaled all those fumes.

raverbashing• 10 years ago

It seems there's a whole industry dedicated to making exercise seem hard and pointless

From trainers that overexert students, things like P90X that do work IF you manage to survive and a large amount of people pushing the "go hard or go home" mentality

Retric5• 10 years ago

Gym's have a huge incentive to get people to sign up and then not go. As such, go big or go home fit's their goals.

Most of the people you see their are over the hump, young and in shape. The people that give up feel it as a personal failure and keep paying on the assumption that someday they will go back. They also train people to make canceling seem like failure.

Further, if you keep up a demanding schedule you will see rapid improvements until injury. Which further pushes the health halo effect.

akeck• 10 years ago

When I get on an exercise kick and do it every day (intense 15 minutes and warm down), after about two weeks, my life gets very smooth. It's fascinating.

cm20123• 10 years ago

I like to post this as a PSA in HN weight loss threads. Every legitimate long term study of non surgical weight loss shows that it doesn't happen for the vast, vast majority of people.

1) ["In controlled settings, participants who remain in weight loss programs usually lose approximately 10% of their weight. However, one third to two thirds of the weight is regained within 1 year, and almost all is regained within 5 years. "](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1580453)

2) Giant meta study of long term weight loss: ["Five years after completing structured weight-loss programs, the average individual maintained a weight loss of >3% of initial body weight."](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.full)

3) Less Scientific: [Weight Watcher's Failure - "about two out of a thousand Weight Watchers participants who reached goal weight stayed there for more than five years."](https://fatfu.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/weight-watchers/)

4) [The reason why it's impossible seems to be that although calories in < calories out works, the body of a fat person makes it extremely difficult psychologically to eat less.](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-...) This is borne out by the above data.

5) [The only thing that does seem to work in the long term is gastric surgery.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1421028/)

Moreover, you won't find any reputable study on the web where the average person lost 10%+ of their body weight and kept it off for five years. Not even one.

jacques_chester2• 10 years ago

Most such studies are done with pathologically obese patients and aren't representative of the general population.

I do, however, agree that it's easy for people to drift. The key is emphasising lifelong change, rather than "diets" per se.

cm20123• 10 years ago

The studies from the meta analysis range from simply overweight (30% of pop) to obese (30% of pop) to morbidly obese (5%) of population. The data did not vary much for each one.

ontoillogical• 10 years ago

Your link to the NYTimes article at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/tara-parker-pope-... is cut off.

I think it's because HN does auto-link shortening and you copy and pasted a previous comment?

cm20123• 10 years ago

Thanks! Corrected.

maxerickson• 10 years ago

You are talking about weight loss programs.

That doesn't necessarily inform weight loss in general. It sort of points to external interventions not being hugely useful.

Personally, I'm about 25% down from my heaviest and a bit more than 10% down from a decade ago. I've never gone on a program, I've just examined my habits and worked to improve them. I would say that it's taken many years to have my weight and habits stabilize at the new lower levels. But that's fine.

tomp• 10 years ago

Diets don't work. You need to change your life(style). It's pretty common knowledge outside of commercially-promoted media.

ef4• 10 years ago

Anything that gets your heart rate somewhere between 110 and 140 beats per minute is enough.

There's a related point that people often get really wrong when they take up distance running: you can (and should!) actually run within that easy heart rate range. It may seem unbearably slow at first, but that just means you aren't ready yet to go faster.

When the goal is "faster pace at low effort", it's tempting to think you can train at faster pace + high effort and wait for the effort to fall. But that doesn't reliably work. You're better off training at low pace + low effort and wait for the pace to rise, holding low effort constant. Mostly this is because you (definitely) reduce the risk of getting hurt and (probably) don't waste a bunch of energy training the wrong metabolic pathways.

The closest thing to a wonder drug is exercise

Related Stories