Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/10/556

by wjb3 • 2 years ago

490 518 2 years ago

bjsm.bmj.com

thunkle• 2 years ago

So the sicker you are the less in shape you are in? Seems obvious to me.

jacurtis• 2 years ago

That's what you hypothesize. Research like this affirms your hypothesis with fact.

There are historically lots of things that "seemed obvious" but couldn't hold up under research, which is why we do research. It confirms what you think or maybe it forces you to question what you think. Either way, it is good.

Case and point, there is a rising opinion lately which Trump has promoted that your heart only beats a set, finite number, of beats in a lifetime. Therefore, according to this opposing hypothesis, it makes sense to not perform intense cardiovascular activity throughout your life, because it accelerates your heart hitting that finite limit that it is capable of. This opinion has gained traction in recent years and to some people it "seems obvious" that a faster heartrate might wear it out more quickly, leading to premature death. So to those people, research like this defeats their assumptions and helps them feel more confident about performing exercise because it is research-backed that Cardiovascular Fitness prolongs life.

That's why research is important. Obvious shouldn't stand for anything.

CalRobert• 2 years ago

Weird though since you can get your resting heart rate much lower by exercising.

UniverseHacker• 2 years ago

I think they were asserting that people are out of shape because they are sick, and that this study does not imply the causality most people would assume: that getting in shape will make you live longer.

The study itself can’t address the direction of causality because it is observational.

timack• 2 years ago

Surely the number of beats of a higher heart rate while exercising would be more than offset by the lower resting heart rate of a fitter person?

dixie_land• 2 years ago

Not agreeing with the (somewhat amusing) limited heartbeats theory, but even under that theory, cardio is beneficial since it lowers your resting heart rate.

e.g.

my HR is 50 thanks to running an hour a day, my HR during those runs are between 120 to 150, that gives 50x60x23+150x60 == 78000 beats a day

a non runner might've a HR of 60 (being very generous, most folks are well above 70), that gives 60x60x24 == 86400 beats

Again, the limited heartbeats theory sounds like an oversimplification. But the point of rigorous training (cardio and strength) is that your body adapts to the taxing efforts during training and doesn't need to work nearly as hard for your day to day.

mensetmanusman• 2 years ago

The less in shape you are, the sicker you can possibly get.

bee_rider• 2 years ago

That seems counter intuitive I’d expect that, if you are in very good shape you can get more sick before dying.

datascienced2• 2 years ago

Probably a continuum of causal arrows pointing either one way or the other, in the group.

MPSimmons3• 2 years ago

The Apple watch has a decent cardio fitness monitor. The absolute values aren't precise (since it uses VO2Max estimates, which is really only accurate if you're doing a metabolic stress test), but it's good to keep an eye on trends.

richardanaya3• 2 years ago

VO2 max is also exercise dependent. If you trained riding bike for 3 months, then went to run down the street, your VO2 max would not transfer over.

basil-rash• 2 years ago

Is that true? Back when I was a crew gremlin, my VO2 max as measured via erging was off the charts. But I could apply that cardio capacity to things like running/biking/swimming pretty effectively.

NoPicklez• 2 years ago

That's why there are separate Cycling and Running VO2 indicators

You won't be a 55 Vo2 runner if you're a 55 Vo2 Cyclist, but cardiovascular fitness does cross between those activities to an extent

giantg25• 2 years ago

VO2 max is a measure of oxygen uptake and distribution. Your VO2 max will transfer over. However, if you're measuring VO2 max in some ancillary way (not a stress test machine) then it will appear differently since you're level of effort will vary based on your technique dor the chosen exercises.

verst• 2 years ago

My VO2 max from running definitely transfers to cycling. Doesn't mean I'm an amazing cyclist but at least cardio isn't my limiting factor.

lr4444lr• 2 years ago

Running down the street at top speed, i.e. for a minute or so, is an anaerobic activity.

busymom04• 2 years ago

Note that there's lots of complaints about the VO2Max estimates on Apple Watch. For example, this reddit thread:

https://old.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/m5q7yx/cardio_f...

https://old.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/yte3zd/the_vo2_...

layman51• 2 years ago

I wonder how it estimates VO2Max and how often depending on the model. On my Series 3, it seems to make a data point two or three times a month and it’s concerning to me because it seems like it isn’t trending up even though I have started to do more cardio exercises. Instead, it has consistently reported a range that it says is below average.

Could it be that it’s just pretty difficult to improve VO2Max in general? Some people’s hearts have to beat harder or they breathe in less than fitter people?

nradov6• 2 years ago

VO2 Max is highly trainable, up to a point. But in order to see any significant improvement you're going to have to spend months consistently doing a mix of hard intervals and long zone 2 workouts.

There are major differences between individuals in terms of training response and achievable upper limit.

Affric• 2 years ago

Series 5 does it post every Cardio exercise

smileysteve4• 2 years ago

I have a mii band fit; it only calculates vo² max when you run for longer than 10 minutes reach a heart rate over 150

SamPatt4• 2 years ago

The FitBit vo2max estimate is fairly crude, at least for my model.

It requires a ten minute run on level ground at a certain heart rate to "calibrate" but tries to estimate it from other exercise too.

It leads to the number fluctuating quite a bit between runs and other exercises.

I'd argue that how you feel during a run or hard cardio training is a better metric. You can fairly easily judge progress week to week, completely subjectively.

migueelo• 2 years ago

I've also been wondering this. Mine reports a number that's way below what I get from other trackers.

I suspect it might use the age and gender predicted max heart rate in the calculations instead of the values set by the user in the workout settings. My MHR has been roughly 25 beats above the average throughout my adult life. As far as I know, above average MHR is not an indicator of poor cardio fitness in it self (even though being fit affects heart rate response).

The discussion part of this paper lists some causes for incorrect VO2MAX prediction, and has a line that may support my thesis https://www.apple.com/healthcare/docs/site/Using_Apple_Watch...

In addition to chronotropic incompetence, other medical conditions can also decrease the accuracy of VO2 max estimates on Apple Watch ... medical conditions that severely limit exercise tolerance, preventing patients from reaching heart rates close to their predicted maximum heart rate

beingfit• 2 years ago

I wonder how it estimates VO2Max and how often depending on the model. On my Series 3, it seems to make a data point two or three times a month and it’s concerning to me because it seems like it isn’t trending up even though I have started to do more cardio exercises.

The description in the Health App under Cardio Fitness (the one that shows VO2 Max) says that it measure it only for outdoor walks, hikes and runs. If you don’t do these outdoor activities, it won’t measure or record VO2 Max. I’ve seen this reflected in my measurements. I do HIIT and cardio workouts at home, and it certainly doesn’t measure or record VO2 Max.

FredPret3• 2 years ago

The poor VO2Max estimates on the Apple Watch is why I'm phasing out of wearing one.

I track my actual VO2Max measurements in Apple Health via a shortcut, and I don't need a daily made-up number messing up my data.

BenFranklin1006• 2 years ago

As the OP mentioned, absolute numbers are garbage, but trends are useful. Once a year just get an actual VO2Max test to peg the watch values too.

ssgodderidge• 2 years ago

I would love to see how this works. Where can I learn more? I’ve been pretty dissatisfied with the VO2Max on the watch overall.

MPSimmons3• 2 years ago

How often do you do metabolic stress tests?

weatherlite15• 2 years ago

Why is Vo2Max important for people who aren't professional athletes? It's not that I'm not curious about my number I'm just not sure how helpful it is going to be - I need to understand what pace I can hold 5k, 10k, 21k and eventually 42k. I think the best way to know that is racing again and again and getting a good feel for your aerobic / threshold zone. Whether my Vo2max is 51 or 52 - does it matter to me?

WheatMillington• 2 years ago

Cardio still counts even if you don't measure it and share it with Apple.

nradov6• 2 years ago

Come on now. If it's not on Strava then it didn't happen.

russell_h• 2 years ago

I think that Apple end-to-end encrypts fitness data.

nanidin4• 2 years ago

Does Apple get your cardio data? It's my understanding is that is encrypted, even when it goes to iCloud for backup.

elsadek• 2 years ago

I love my Garmin Fenix 6 pro.

herdcall• 2 years ago

I've been seeing strange downtrends on my VO2Max numbers with Apple Watch: they have dropped from 40's to 20's over a matter of a few days and have been steadily trending down. I haven't changed my exercise patterns at all for years now. There are others on the Apple forum facing similar abrupt drops, anyone else here seeing it? I'm hoping it's the watch messing up and not my health!

dailykoder5• 2 years ago

But do you really need a botnet on your arm to get motivated to do sports once a week? Weird society

busymom04• 2 years ago

Slightly related:

I have been engaging in powerlifting/weightlifting for over a decade. In my initial years, I was in the "just do weights, don't need cardio" camp. However, around 2018, I started doing cardio mostly to cut body weight as I wanted to hit my personal bests on squats, deadlifts, and bench at a lower body weight.

I personally experienced that my weights moved much better, especially when I was doing more volume work (higher reps) with cardio than without cardio. Cardio seemed to improve my working capacity and I felt more efficient at doing more reps.

So, I would recommend cardio even when one is trying to bulk up in weight and trying to get strong. Doesn't have to be crazy cardio either - just 10 - 15 minutes of zone 2 cardio 4 days a week might be good enough. You can also do types of cardio which work certain muscles - like stair master can be made to specifically target the quads and calves. Or rowing can be good for building the lats. Swimming is good too.

Personally, I either do intervals on the stair master or intervals on an echo bike (fan bike).

richardanaya3• 2 years ago

Non-intense aerobic exercise exercises a narrower metabolic aspect of your cells than intense anaerobic exercise. You have to be be very careful what you consider is beneficial "cardio".

kelipso• 2 years ago

I see a similar effect too. I usually do just lifting but I recently started doing a bit of cardio (rowing and that resistance treadmill thing) and it improved my lifting even at 5 reps. Granted my cardio was pretty bad but I felt more steady and felt like I could do more volume.

busymom04• 2 years ago

Completely anecdotal but I think cardio of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) type transfers over the best to weight lifting. I am going to guess it has something to do with the intense/explosive intervals in cardio making one more used to similar explosiveness on weights.

analog31• 2 years ago

One of my few regrets in life, and something I advise to all younger people, is that I didn't work on my upper body strength when I was younger. Now I'm 60, and it's going to be essentially a battle against muscle loss.

So I suppose the message needs to be: Both are important.

busymom04• 2 years ago

My regrets is that I didn't utilize cardio earlier. I would have achieved my lifting goals much earlier if I had.

BenFranklin1006• 2 years ago

60 is plenty young to build muscle as long as you have no serious injuries. You may not be that far off from a 60 year old former college athlete who let it all go to pot at age 35. In fact, I’d wager hardcore 20 something athletes may have experienced injuries that now prevent their older selves from maintaining a healthy lifestyle. There may be advantages to having been a nerdy slight out of shape 30 year old. :)

refurb6• 2 years ago

A lot of it comes down to how your body responds.

I found that cardio tended to severely limit my lifting gains if I did anything more than 30 minutes in a week. I stopped entirely and found my lift increased more rapidly.

But that's just me. Just like all the other variables you have - number of sets, number of repetitions, frequency of workouts, rest periods, it's good to try a few options and see which one your body responds to the best.

bradley13• 2 years ago

You can turn weight training into cardio, by keeping breaks between sets down to just a few seconds.

If you go to a fitness center, some have machines set up for this. Mine used to call it circuit training. At home, if you're using free weights, have enough that you don't waste time changing plates.

sn97• 2 years ago

The Barbell Medicine podcast has a three-part series on cardio you should check out.

lovecg2• 2 years ago

There’s amusing statistics that show that if you’re out of shape and a smoker, you get a bigger bang for the buck from getting in shape first than quitting smoking. Disclaimer: not an endorsement of smoking.

arendtio• 2 years ago

How much time do you have to get into shape?

When it takes 50 years, the statistic probably doesn't hold because you will be dead by then due to the negative influence of smoking on your health.

wrycoder• 2 years ago

It only takes a few months to make substantial gains in c-v fitness.

dopidopHN• 2 years ago

A bit less than a year ? And also I made friends along the way.

s1artibartfast14• 2 years ago

Its not cardiovasuclar, but the top 2 causes of death in the US are tied to obesity, which takes zero time to reduce. You just have to not eat, which is actually time positive.

Most humans are just incredibly bad at impulse control.

rTX5CMRXIfFG• 2 years ago

That sounds like the sort of stuff you’d remember because it validates what you already want to believe

darth_avocado2• 2 years ago

Smoking does reduce appetite and therefore can help in weight loss/getting in shape. (I don’t smoke)

nradov6• 2 years ago

That sounds like the sort of stuff that is completely correct. Low fitness is significantly more risky than smoking. (I am not suggesting that anyone start or continue smoking.)

https://peterattiamd.com/all-things-vo2-max/

nanidin4• 2 years ago

I remember when going through scuba diving certification, the instructor mentioned that smokers generally get more time out of a tank because their lungs absorb oxygen more efficiently or something like that. And she smoked a lot.

lovecg2• 2 years ago

Absolutely true, I found it amusing because I came to strongly believe over the years that lack of physical activity is one of the worst things one can do for one’s overall wellbeing. We evolved to be physically active, sitting around all day can be compared to being malnourished or not getting enough sunlight or social contact, etc.

m3kw9• 2 years ago

Getting back to the baseline isn’t a bonus

Broken_Hippo3• 2 years ago

It most definitely is a bonus if you aren't there now.

m463• 2 years ago

reminds me of the bicycle helmet stuff.

There was a ted talk that said bicycle helmet laws would kill more people than save.

The reasoning was preventing people from riding would also prevent increased fitness, and more lives were lost from that than saved from accidents.

EDIT: I think this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY

AbbeSomething• 2 years ago

This sounds ridiculous until you go to Amsterdam see that few wear helmets there. And everyone is cycling.

They might be more inclined to cycle because they don’t need to wear a helmet.

After years of cycling with helmet you get so used to it and it doesn’t bother you. But how many skip the bike because they never got used to wearing a helmet?

smileysteve4• 2 years ago

There's real data out there that while a helmet has better survival rates than not; but cars give more room to bicycles without helmets, so the incident rate is lower.

bdcravens• 2 years ago

Kind of tacky, but I had a strange "what if" kind of conversation with someone about alcohol. The premise was that more people are born due to drunken sexual encounters than are killed by drunk drivers.

abandonliberty• 2 years ago

More cyclists on the road makes it safer for cyclists. Combined with risk compensation, this seems enough to make helmet laws a net negative. Well studied. Wear a helmet though, they work!

arpinum• 2 years ago

Bicycle helmets are not designed for impact with a car. They are designed to handle falls to the ground. The forces are quite different.

tim333• 2 years ago

I think that's pretty true in my demographic - kind of old fat, at risk of heart attacks and a casual cyclist. For us lot heart attack deaths are like 1000x+ more than cycle head fatalities. On the other hand for young cycle racers I'd go with compulsory helmets.

BenFranklin1006• 2 years ago

I am disappointed by how poor primary care is in the developed world. It could easily be made better by including a VO2Max test and a DEXA scan every few years. On my own dime, I took both (cost was ~ $150 total from a private provider) and the DEXA scan revealed I carried too much visceral fat and my cardiovascular fitness was only average, things that never came up in my yearly physical. The same applies for basic strength testing, another predictor of morbidity and mortality.

swatcoder2• 2 years ago

For better or worse (worse), people don't go to the doctor for lifestyle analysis and rarely take lifestyle advice from their doctors.

They go to their doctors to know when to start medical interventions.

Even simple waist-to-hip ratio assessement would be a big win for identifying lifestyle concerns, but neither that nor the far more involved VO2Max and DEXA rests are going to become standard unless they becoming a gaiting condition for some celebrated drug or procedure.

And that's as much because of the patient's perspective of what they want from doctors as it is because of the doctors or broader establishment.

readthenotes1• 2 years ago

I know an aged cardiologist who jokes:

"I tell my patients they will need to lose weight, but whatever they do they must not lose it too fast. They always follow that advice just fine"

makeitdouble4• 2 years ago

Even simple waist-to-hip ratio assessement

Settling for subpar "could be good enough" heuristics instead of doing actual measurements is partly why people are less receptive.

Basically it'd just be telling them they're fat, and not what's their actual individual risk, and it would also make tracking progress overly difficult: what if after a year of exercice their VO2Max greatly improves while waist to hip only slightly changed ?

Overweight people already have distrust of doctors just telling them to first lose weight and dismiss their specific requests for help, additional advice vaguely based on statistics would probably not help.

jeffbee3• 2 years ago

Who wants lifestyle advice from an American doctor? If they find out you biked to their office, 9 out of 10 of them will scold you about helmets, in the exact same counterproductive way as Americans of every other occupation.

throwawaysleep• 2 years ago

Have to weight it against whether people are meaningfully willing to act on that information. Bluntly, I go to a Dr for meds. I have never been willing to make any lifestyle changes.

edgyquant• 2 years ago

And this is part of the problem. Doctors will give you medicine instead of trying to fix anything. Medicine should be a last resort not the the first

giantg25• 2 years ago

"It could easily be made better by including a VO2Max test and a DEXA scan every few years."

Frankly, the vast majority of people don't need fancy tests. The thing is, the healthcare system is not about optimizing health or performance. It's mostly about fixing problems and heading off the most common ones in the easiest ways. If the goal was to optimize, it would be relatively easy for a trained individual to examine most people and tell them to lose weight and exercise more. Hell, you could blindfold the person and their advice would still be right like 80% of the time.

BenFranklin1006• 2 years ago

I think you neglect the motivation factor. Hard data that can be quantitatively tracked is motivating for many. Think of the fitness tracker market. It’s huge. For myself, the tests served as a wake-up call in a way that knowing I was 10-15 lbs too pudgy and not the fastest runner was not.

At the very least, good medical care provides information. What the individual does with it is up to them.

ashconnor2• 2 years ago

Pretty sure Dexa scans and VO2Max tests are HSA/FSA eligible.

buildsjets• 2 years ago

What about it? It’s still coming out of my pocket, albeit untaxed.

s1artibartfast14• 2 years ago

The highest impact diagnostic of all cause mortality is a scale. The next best is a mirror.

Most people have these at home and fail to take meaningful action based on the results.

refurb6• 2 years ago

What would be the point of measuring VO2Max and a DEXA scan in a mostly sedentary, obese population?

"Excuse me sir, I have you VO2Max and DEXA scan results. It shows your cardiovascular fitness and body fat is problematic. But we already knew that since your BMI is 35 and you told me you don't exercise at all".

eternauta3k2• 2 years ago

What's the advantage of a VO2max test compared to e.g. measuring speed or power in your (standardized) intervals?

SoftTalker• 2 years ago

This seems completely unsurprising.

nullc• 2 years ago

But do they establish a causal arrow? If you're in chronic pain because you're dying of something you're not exactly going to be likely to do a lot of cardio workout. :)

Without care you might conclude, for example, that rock climbing prevents becoming a quadriplegic since there aren't any quadriplegic rock climbers... when in fact to the extent that they're related at all rock climbing sometimes causes it.

nradov6• 2 years ago

Causality is likely bidirectional here.

datascienced2• 2 years ago

Because you couldn’t say “in mice” :-)

hinkley2• 2 years ago

Exercise does have some positive contribution to inflammatory response. Chronic pain is a pretty big bucket, though.

Aperocky10• 2 years ago

Fortunately, this seems relatively simple to change (compared to other things with this magnitude of impact).

It was a transformative experience to go from 40 VO2max to 57 (as reported by Apple Watch, and losing 30lbs on the way) over the past 12 months. The best part about it is that I didn't even have to give up anything - the extra energy I gained from 90-120 minutes of aerobics per day also had the effect of making everything else more efficient.

purplerabbit• 2 years ago

that’s an amazing change. Could you elaborate on your training regimen?

Aperocky10• 2 years ago

It's a mixture of running and cycling and really less planning than what I should have.

Generally, my runs are between 5-10K and rides are 30km/20mi ish. More days than not I'll do both, but on other days I only get one done due to time issues. Weekends are usually for longer rides. I average around 200km/130mi on the bike and 40-50km of running per week. I've had to build up to this level gradually so it started from a much lower volume but I've been able to keep it pretty consistent for this year.

It's gotten to a point where if I don't do any exercise I would feel really bad physiologically so it drives me to go out everyday. But I essentially choose what to do at the hour and since most of the training is zone 2/endurance it doesn't matter too much.

jebarker• 2 years ago

40 to 57 is a huge increase in a year - kudos!

Aperocky10• 2 years ago

Thank you!

This post is a little braggy but it's also one of the best things I've did and I'm genuinely proud of it. The result and the process wildly exceeded my expectation at the time when I started last summer and it made me happier, more efficient, and even gave me time to reflect (since there's not much else you can do while going on a long ride/run) mentally.

If anyone is thinking about it - give it a try! The starting months are the hardest, but once it gets going a positive feedback loop takes over. I've been able to convince some people in my life to start exercising when they saw me change so substantially in a single year.

mvkel2• 2 years ago

You should know that vo2 measurements that aren't performed via gas exchange or blood measurement are a complete guess.

The other thing is the denominator of vo2 is weight. So losing weight without working out at all will increase vo2

rhplus2• 2 years ago

It really doesn’t matter for most amateurs trying to improve their health whether the metric is accurate or not. The huge benefit of fitness trackers is that a metric is a metric is a metric. Eat less, exercise more, sleep soundly - you can’t go wrong, and if the metric is steps, or HR, or pace, or calories burned, or (in this case) estimated VO2max and seeing improvements in those metrics relative to a baseline is a motivating factor then that’s all that matters.

Well done to OP. Keep it up.

Aperocky10• 2 years ago

Yes. But at least the watch is comparing against a previous measurement, making the baseline consistent.

It could have been named Vo5max and for me it'd have worked. In the real world, this number actually tracks pretty linearly with how much faster I'm able to climb a hill on a bike.

38• 2 years ago

2 hours a day is a ridiculous amount

SamPatt4• 2 years ago

Why is two hours ridiculous?

I find most people who devote themselves like this enjoy the process. If they enjoy it, it objectively improves their body, and they have the time - why not?

adrianN• 2 years ago

Just my commute is about an hour of cycling per day and I do some other sports two to three times a week for about two hours. It's not that hard to average out to about two hours of activity per day.

timeon2• 2 years ago

Not as ridiculous amount as average (and mine) screen time.

johnfn• 2 years ago

What sort of workouts do you do? I've been trying to do the same thing, but I'm finding it difficult to get VO2max to go up consistently.

Aperocky10• 2 years ago

Full aerobics with no strength training. So far I only do cycling and running, averaging to about 110~ minutes per day (with weekends having longer times and weekdays shorter)

80% or more of it is spent at Zone 2/Endurance where I try to keep my heart rate below 145.

throwaway203710• 2 years ago

I love these kinds of posts. They are ridiculous.

First:

    > Fortunately, this seems relatively simple to change

Second:

    > the extra energy I gained from 90-120 minutes of aerobics per day

Are you joking? You are asking average people to commit to 90-120 of c-v exercise per day? So, 7 days per week? This stuff is nonsense. Most people would quit after a week. I guess 99% of people could not sustain this for more than 3 months.

Aperocky10• 2 years ago

I still average more screen time on the phone..

The hard part is getting started. Once you start it's self-perpetuating.

Zone 2 endurance aerobic exercise are in some way similar to an addiction but you'll need a certain volume to trigger it.

It is a little braggy but I also consider this one of the best things I've did in my whole life - and I myself didn't remotely dreamed of this result when I started last year.

bo10244• 2 years ago

They did say "simple", not "easy"...

timeon2• 2 years ago

You could already be running instead of spending time in this thread.

With 30km bike commute you can scroll the web as much as before.

lukas0996• 2 years ago

Yeah, I think the usgov-recommended guidelines of 150min/week (plus two strength training sessions) is a decent starting point thought.

keybored2• 2 years ago

Congrats. You’re an inspiration to me. :)

linux_devil• 2 years ago

Even if Vo2 is inaccurate on Apple watch , relative increase in your Vo2 is a positive metric. Kudos to you.

sandspar• 2 years ago

That's a massive change! It's realistic for an untrained person to expect a 15% change in a year with exercise; you went up almost 50%. What subjective changes have you noticed in your day to day?

fbdab103• 2 years ago

With the caveat that everything fitness is mostly a bunch of non-researched beliefs...

Which is better for establishing cardio fitness? Short and hard vs longer and moderate?

hinkley2• 2 years ago

Cardio is aerobic exercise. If you have to ask, you’re not a world class athlete and the answer is longer and moderate.

8f2ab37a-ed6c• 2 years ago

What’s the best way to accurately measure one’s VO2 max, or at least ballpark it sufficiently so that you can track improvement over time without it being lost in measurement noise?

dnissley• 2 years ago

Probably a cooper test -- run as far as you can in 12 mins. Then there is a formula to convert that distance to vo2 max.

eternauta3k2• 2 years ago

If you have a power meter (e.g. assault bike) just measure with what power you can do the Norwegian 4x4 protocol.

bo10244• 2 years ago

Do you need to measure VO2 max specifically? If your form of exercise is jogging/running, you will easily be able to tell if you're improving by tracking distance and time of your runs. If you want to be precise, you can e.g. race a timed 5k once per month under the same conditions. But if you're a beginner, you won't need that to be able to tell you're improving, just the feel of difficulty to maintain a certain pace will change noticeably.

As someone else mentioned, a classic poor man's test of VO2 max is simply to time trial a set amount, such as seeing how far you can run in 10 minutes, and use a calculator. So the same thing with extra steps.

sn97• 2 years ago

It's cheaper and more useful to just track something like your 5k time over time.

If it's meaningfully improving from year to year, you're improving all the things you care about.

(The best way to improve that is to slowly increase your volume of cardiovascular training over time, with at least 80% being zone 2 work.)

electrondood• 2 years ago

I was blown away at just how little exercise is required to significantly increase your lifespan: 20 minutes a day, 3 times a week. That's it.

The Copenhagen City Heart Study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology in 2018 found that light jogging for 20 minutes a day, 3x a week reduces all-cause mortality by 78%.

That's insane.

lostmsu• 2 years ago

Assuming 80 year lifespan -10 years of childhood this comes out to approximately 1 year spent on exercise. That does not include preparation and recovery times.

snemvalts4• 2 years ago

If you have to measure time spent and do cost/benefit analysis, you're most likely not going to stick with it for the entirety of life.

refurb6• 2 years ago

It's a logarithmic curve. On a 1 to 10 scale, increasing activity from 0 to 1 provides a large decrease in mortality. Going from 1 to 2 another big jump. But 2 to 3 is less, until finally it plateaus.

But yes, people don't realize that even just walking at a moderate pace for 20 min 3 times a week provides huge benefits if you are otherwise completely sedentary.

whateveracct3• 2 years ago

I've been walking every day and lifting weights 2x a week. I feel good so far but the hard part is doing it for years and through seasons (both literal and figurative).

speedgoose• 2 years ago

You should add some diversity in your activities and you will perhaps identify some that you enjoy more at a given time.

throwaway203710• 2 years ago

About lifting weights: The trick for me is to keep a diary of my current exercises and weight levels. (It's very simple -- just 5 mins or less to maintain each workout.) This will be very motivating if you can increase weight, reps, or number of sets ("total volume").

nilsherzig• 2 years ago

I use FitNotes (android, no ads) to take these notes. It can show me a breakdown of the workout volume per body part and some trends like estimated one rep max. It can also automatically start a timer after you've entered the data of your last set.

whateveracct3• 2 years ago

I already have a weekly planner I put in my traveler's notebook. This is a good idea! I already have a boolean "did I do it" tracker, but it would be nice to see the numbers go up :D Maybe put it in a spreadsheet.

EcommerceFlow• 2 years ago

If anyone wants a shortcut to an extremely good workout, look into rowing (MAKE SURE you learn proper form!).

I focus on "maxing out" sets of 500m since it correlates well to basketball cardio, and I have infinite cardio even in my mid 30's.

HPMOR• 2 years ago

I’ve recently taken up the erg machine doing an hour a day, and it’s been phenomenal. The one problem I’m faced with is canabalizing my chest muscles for increased legs and back. Eating enough calories is actually impossible.

refurb6• 2 years ago

Yup, for all the risks that people focus on (microplastics, pesticide residues, etc), they don't do the easiest thing to ensure health - exercise.

TechDebtDevin3• 2 years ago

Well I think you have that backwards, most people concern themselves with the former because they are the easiest to address. It's very easy to just eat less and buy healthier food. Getting your running shoes on and going for a run when you're out of shape and overweight is extremely hard for most people in that category.

refurb6• 2 years ago

That's certainly true, and nothing wrong with doing the "easiest" first, but it's interesting that people get so focused on such small changes in risk all the while ignoring the big ones.

xwowsersx2• 2 years ago

Are there cheap fitness bands or smart watches that can somewhat accurately track VO2 max?

nateberkopec• 2 years ago

You don’t need a watch. You can estimate VO2 max yourself by doing a max effort 1.5 mile run and applying a regression equation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4795745/

That’s all the watches are doing anyway. Even if you do buy a watch, keep in mind you need to run regular max effort runs to get an accurate value.

kccqzy3• 2 years ago

So if you buy a watch but run slower than max effort, wouldn't it the watch record an inaccurate value? The watch probably only determines effort through heart rate but that has significant individual differences.

xwowsersx2• 2 years ago

Very helpful, thank you

Mathnerd3144• 2 years ago

The relationship isn't linear, you can see in https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/54/20/1195#sec-16 that above 2200 MET-minutes/week there is increased cancer risk which outweighs the cardiovascular benefits. Now admittedly it is a very weak correlation, and MET measurement is imprecise, but I think it is safe to say that there are risks associated with over-exercising and while being in shape is good, being a ultra-marathon runner or other extreme fitness enthusiast is unhealthy long-term, and the risks start sooner than you might expect. (2200 MET-minutes/week is about 3 hours of 8mph running per week)

julianeon• 2 years ago

I remember reading somewhere that, to maximize your health, run as much as you can each week, you won't hit the upper bound when it gets bad.

In the example you cited, that's 36 hours (!) of runnning in a week: meaning I'd have to run 6 hours a day and only take Sunday off each week before I was officially running too much. And I've noticed I can't run more than 4 days a week anyway, so even that's off limits. 6 hours a day, 6 days a week, even under optimal conditions, wouldn't be something I'd approach even if I was retired.

So practically speaking, "run as much as you can before your body aches stops you" seems like a good rule of thumb.

Mathnerd3144• 2 years ago

I'm not sure what math you're using. 12.9 MET for running * 3 hours * 60 minutes/hour is 2322 MET-minutes, so just 3 hours of running is sufficient to exceed the 2200 threshold. 36 hours of running would be 27864 MET-minutes, of course it is too much. But 3 hours of running in a week is quite easy to exceed, e.g. if you run half an hour every morning.

There are some studies which suggest that the artery buildup from frequent running is not bad, but these don't take cancer or other factors into account - in contrast all-cause mortality is one of the most comprehensive statistics available. The drawback is that although it gives you a number, that number might be affected by unknown variables.

voisin2• 2 years ago

In the example you cited, that's 36 hours (!) of runnning in a week

Isn’t OP saying explicitly that 2200 MET minutes per week is simply 3 hours of running per week at 8mph? Where does your 36 hours come from?

ywnico• 2 years ago

MET-minutes seem to be "Metabolic equivalent of task" minutes [1]. In the paper, they give running an MET of 8 (paragraph 3 of Data Analysis section), so 2200 MET-minutes of running would be 2200/8 = 275 minutes, if I understand correctly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent_of_task

ParacelsusOfEgg• 2 years ago

Great share! That meta-analysis was a good read.

I'd disagree slightly with your characterization of the author's findings on over-exercising; quoting from the discussion section:

"Our findings do not provide evidence for increased mortality risk with physical activity amounts as high as seven times above the current recommended target range. All cause, CVD and CHD mortality risks were lower at physical activity levels up to approximately 5–7 times the recommended level but the additional reduction in risk of mortality with engagement in activity at levels beyond the recommendations was modest and with increasing uncertainty, as reflected by the wide confidence intervals. Thus based on all of the available studies, we did not identify a higher mortality risk at any level of physical activity above the recommended level, although the lowest point estimate for all cause mortality was approximately 2000 MET min. Our analyses suggest that 10–12 hours of weekly vigorous physical activity cannot be considered harmful to longevity."

My reading is that the authors did not draw any conclusions about increased risks at higher MET levels due to the broad confidence intervals caused by the cancer risk data.

Mathnerd3144• 2 years ago

Right. I think that statement is based on Supplement eTable 5, where they analyzed numbers up to 6,000 MET-minutes/week.

Using confidence intervals in this case is a bit misleading though. What would be most useful IMO would be the prediction interval for the lowest point estimate, as that could be used to determine if individual activity amounts are appropriate.

jeffbee3• 2 years ago

Luckily, very few people are in danger of extreme fitness. That is what the word extreme means.

throwaway203710• 2 years ago

    > 2200 MET-minutes/week is about 3 hours of 8mph running per week

Wow, that is a lot of exercise for the average person. That would be 30 mins per day, six days a week. Again, I don't think 99% of people can sustain this for a more than a few months.

sn97• 2 years ago

99% of people could probably build up to it easily with consistent training.

That's only 24 miles per week of running.

Most people could probably get to that level of fitness within a year.

bo10244• 2 years ago

If the authors don't draw conclusions from that, I wouldn't either.

For example, suppose the main impact of exercise on cancer risk were simply the correlation with time spent outdoors in the sun. Then you would expect to see a chart like this. But a conclusion like 'limit running to 3 hours/week, while walking can be up to 12 hours/week' would be totally wrong.

Mathnerd3144• 2 years ago

They do draw that conclusion - "the lowest point estimate for all cause mortality was approximately 2000 MET min". What their analysis did not identify is what level of exercise beyond that results in a significant increase in mortality risk. If you look at the individual studies that have categories above 2200, (Slattery 1989, Arraiz 1992, Besson 2008, Kvaavik 2010, Paganini-Hill 2011, Brown 2012, Arem 2015, Huerta 2016, Klenk 2016, Celis-Morales 2017, Lear 2017, Zhou 2017, and Liu 2018), there is some variation - almost every study shows a U-shape, but the lowest point differs by gender, age, measurement method, BMI, and so on. And the effects of too much exercise are small compared to the effects of too little, so it is not surprising that their basic univariate analysis with Stata glst is unable to resolve it. But given the number of U-shape studies I think it is reasonable to conclude that some amount is too much - in the absence of reliable statistics I would say to trust one's body and if it feels like you are pushing yourself hard every week then cut back.

manoji• 2 years ago

I was surprised how much cardio fitness improves by just losing weight. After losing close to 10 kgs I was able to run a 5K consistently 3 times a week and reached a respectable level of fitness for playing basketball

scotteric• 2 years ago

You literally feel lighter on your feet, like there's a spring in your step when you lose a good amount of weight. Imagine carrying around a 10kg weight with you all day.

chrisoconnell• 2 years ago

Over the past 11 months, I've lost 122lbs, from 330lbs to 208lbs. (May 30, 2023 - Today)

For the first 2 months, cardio was not part of it. Really focusing on diet, reintroducing myself to portions of Whole Foods to hit macro goals. Really focusing on vegetables and protein, large quantities of low calorie foods that digest relatively slowly to keep me satiated for long periods. They're also quick to digest.

I was always active, even at 330lbs I would mountain bike (ascending and downhill) comfortable on black diamonds, same with snowboarding. This continued, but I didn't try to explicitly do and track cardio.

After I lost 35lbs, I added CrossFit once a week. Then 2 times a week. Then 3 times a week. I noticed that olympic lifts and squats would cause extreme systemic fatigue, and would leave me dizzy and out of breath. After a couple months,

I stopped doing CrossFit due to an injury caused that that effect, and started isolated training for muscle hypertrophy utilizing machines for 5+ days a week, but missed the cardio that CrossFit gave.

I was about 260lbs at this point, and started with incline walking at about 3mph at max incline for 40 minutes. Then I started to begin my cardio with a 6mph run until I was out of breath and a high heart rate, and then began the incline walking.

After a week or so, I began running the a mile at the fastest speed I could, then switching to incline walking until my heart rate dropped, and alternated running and incline walking for 40 minutes.

Then, in November, I ran my first 5k in 34 minutes. I was hooked. I walked a couple minutes of it in the middle, but was pround myself. Today, I can run a 5k in 25 minutes if I push myself.

Today, I ran 5 miles without stopping with several hundred feet of elevation gain.

Cardio health is life changing. I used to be tired walking up large sets of stairs, and it was embarrassing to not be able to hold a conversation for long while walking up stairs.

It's also a myth, perpetuated by highly trained athletes that you cannot gain muscle and do cardio, or that you cannot do these things while in a caloric deficit.

I have lost nearly 1% of my body weight per week as a vegetarian while gaining significant muscle mass (today, I am about 15-17% body fat at 6'1 and 208lbs).

The biggest thing I can say is it's never too late to start, and it's important to be consistent and find what works for you. At 32 years old, I have added years to my life, and feel and look better than I ever have.

Also, cardio gives an amazing dopamine rush that beyond addicting. Highly recommend it. But don't forget the resistance training.

Anyone can do it. One day at a time.

As someone in tech, the process of rebuilding yourself is addicting once you start to see progress on every front.

VO2Max Increasing. Resting Heart Rate Dropping. Waist Shrinking. Chest, Arms, Legs Growing. Muscle definition increasing. Lift PRs increasing. And you look better in clothing.

rgoulter• 2 years ago

Congrats on the progress!

It's also a myth, perpetuated by highly trained athletes that you cannot gain muscle and do cardio, or that you cannot do these things while in a caloric deficit.

I think it's more accurate to describe this in terms of definitions: "gains muscle while in caloric deficit" is possible for the untrained/beginners.

For the first 2 months, cardio was not part of it.

It's really easy for bad diet decisions to counteract the effects of even a significant amount of cardio; and it's easy to fatigue the body by trying to do too much cardio.

For aiming for calorie deficit, I think it makes sense "do what's least awful out of: reduce calories in food, or add cardio".

Cardio health is life changing.

I noticed my chess.com rating improved just from improving cardiovascular health.

started isolated training for muscle hypertrophy utilizing machines for 5+ days a week

My impression as a beginner was that free weights were scary and that there were many exercises you'd have to choose from. (Whereas machines seemed idiot proof). In practice, "squat, deadlift, benchpress" would be a good start. (Or a starting point to read about, anyway).

https://exrx.net/ is an outstanding website that I wish I'd come across sooner.

Panzer04• 2 years ago

Couldn't agree more, at least on the strength front (I focused on that for 6mo 1.5 years ago) - Just those basic lifts will massively improve your muscle, and a lot of those improvements persisted despite doing very little strength work over the last year.

Anything is better than nothing, and many of the benefits are going to persist in some form for quite some time. I did lose some strength, but I'm still on the order of 1.5-2x as strong as I was before I did any work at all. Never mind the confidence strength training gives you when it comes to just doing basic stuff and knowing you aren't going to hurt yourself.

I think it's valuable to turn things into regular habits, but it's also worth noting for those who have this idea that it's a waste (because they'd rather be doing something else, and they don't want to work out for the rest of their life) - 6 months of basic (but hard, proper) workouts will pay dividends for probably forever.

1992spacemovie• 2 years ago

Damn bro you’re going beast mode. Keep it up. That’s awesome.

kamaal• 2 years ago

Not sure how true this is, I heard in the Joe Rogan podcast, cardio vascular fitness, like the extreme kind correlates with nearly the entire disease spectrum. It doesn't apply to something like 'acts of god' type things like Cancer or COVID. But it seems to be the best bet against aging, and other diseases.

My favorite exercise in this regard is Swimming and Kettlebell training.

Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement for Swinning and Kettlebell training.

mr_toad• 2 years ago

Exercise is a factor in reducing the risk of several types of cancer. And fitness does reduce the effects of COVID even if it wont stop you getting it.

TechDebtDevin3• 2 years ago

It turns out having the intelligence to not listen to JRs advice on most things will likely increase your life expectancy.

sn97• 2 years ago

Rogan's a gullible moron.

Go to people who know what they're talking about like the Barbell Medicine podcast for evidence-based fitness recommendations.

perfectritone• 2 years ago

easy hack: maintain a garden in an area with poor soil. between clearing, aerating, digging, mulching and weeding you can get all of your cardio AND some fresh veggies!

jjallen• 2 years ago

Shouldn't the title be "Weak cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality"?

weatherlite15• 2 years ago

It's also absolutely amazing for mental health. It's a shame it isn't considered a first line of treatment for mental health because it's super effective (and free).

snemvalts4• 2 years ago

Instead, people try to fix it with antidepressants, benzodiazepines or something else.

It feels a bit like the US approach to pain management – instead of massages or physical therapy, some opioid pill is cheaper to prescribe.

dailykoder5• 2 years ago

I dislike this black n white rhetoric from both sides. "Just do some workout" - "no this doesn't work for me". Yes, workout does help, but mental illness is still real. Both sides should try to be more sensitive and more understanding in my opinion.

I can't fix my social anxiety through workout. But I sure can feel better about myself when doing it and then approach those anxieties with more confidence, but the anxieties are still there.

noonanibus• 2 years ago

It's not that hard a leap is it? For some reason it seems oblivious to non-sufferers that the idea of a physical treatment for a mental ailment is a given?

For most folks, that connection doesn't exist. Hell, I work out 3x a week and even I don't notice the obvious side-effects even though I'm certain they exist.

When we're dealing with ordinary people living their daily lives, the idea that something so "non-mental" - in the most literal sense "physical" can have an effect on the mental, is a really tough thing to swallow, understand and hell, even percept when things are going well?

Sorry. But I'm an avid gym-goer and even I have to remind myself of the positive it's doing. We're not all the same.

TillE• 2 years ago

Exercise (and sunlight!) are proven treatments for mild to moderate depression. It's probably not all you need, but it's a very good start.

Exercise does nothing for severe depression.

weatherlite15• 2 years ago

Yep exactly this. The thing is we are now so removed from exercise (and healthy living in general) as a society - take the car, take the elevator, sit at your desk the whole day and then fall asleep in the couch at home. And paradoxically this lifestyle makes us so tired and energy depleted, that even the thought of starting to exercise seems ridiculous to many. This is making it super hard for many people to start exercising and persist, it seems like everything in modern society is geared to make us couch zombies - so no surprise we have high levels of obesity, anxiety, depression and what not.

makeitdouble4• 2 years ago

I think it's partly because as it also works as prevention of those same mental illnesses, many patients will have a higher than average barrier to clear to exercise (including just getting out of the house for a walk).

I've had friends able to start exercising a few months in their treatments, when the medication gave them more mental leeway. Before that they were fighting to wake up and properly eat, and do anything really.

fortyguy40• 2 years ago

I struggle with anxiety and have below average HRV and VO2max.

I started jogging a month or so ago and have definitely seen an improvement in my mental health.

weatherlite15• 2 years ago

I love hearing this. If you'll keep at it you'll see your fitness and VO2max explode up so don't worry about it. Do some easy miles a few times a week during the first few months, just keep at it and be consistent.

steve_adams_863• 2 years ago

I deal with pretty severe depression and running is far more effective than antidepressants. It varies for everyone, but I know I’m not alone.

It’s tough because I’ve known this for 15 years or so, but when I’m in a hole it somehow seems like it’ll only make things worse. I understand why someone who hasn’t had the experience of feeling better from exercise would see the entire premise as unlikely or absurd.

SwiftyBug4• 2 years ago

It wasn't before I had a good place to run (away from cars and the city) that I started running. Yes, it's free, but it's very hard to pick the habit if your environment doesn't help.

weatherlite15• 2 years ago

No doubt. Picking any new habit is quite hard. If your immediate surroundings don't support running a treadmill could also be a good solution.

pjc503• 2 years ago

Exercise is the perfect treatment for mental health: it doesn't cost the "provider" anything, and when the patient doesn't do it because they're depressed or disordered, you can blame them for not cooperating. It's not a solution, it's something you can say so that it's not your problem any more.

(Would be great if there were actually prescribed work-compatible supervised exercise sessions on offer, but AFAIK that's not a thing offered anywhere by any health service)

agos2• 2 years ago

is it not? I thought the suggestion "have you tried exercising" to depressed people had reached meme status based on its frequency

weatherlite15• 2 years ago

I'm not familiar with people suggesting this. It should come from school counselors , college counselors, family doctors and therapists. The thing is all these people, statistically, are not exercising enough themselves so I find it hard to believe they will offer exercise as a first line.

rincebrain2• 2 years ago

The problem is that, if you're in a position where you are having serious depression, for example, it doesn't really matter how objectively or subjectively helpful it is, you can't even bother getting motivated to do things you are certain you enjoy, let alone something unknown.

This is the same problem with CPAP machines - they nominally have a huge efficacy rate, and a rock-bottom rate of people sticking to them, because for a lot of people, they're deeply invasive and uncomfortable, and insurance (in the US) in many cases has stopped paying for them if their obsessive babysitting doesn't swear you've used it 95% of the time, so people just say "hell with it" and stop stressing about, say, not being able to take a hike for a few days of camping because their insurance will stop paying for it.

It all goes back to the fundamental premise of "if your solution requires changing people, you will not succeed."

weatherlite15• 2 years ago

Imagine that on top (or even instead) of the chemicals and therapy a personal trainer would make sure you go to meet him (or he comes to your apartment) and does a session with you. This can work even with a severely depressed person. We prescribe these methods for physical therapy, so why can't there be physical therapy for the mind? We might be able to lower obesity/morbidity/depression by so much if we operated this way.

thraway3837• 2 years ago

Can you please elaborate? You’re saying that CPAP is effective but people don’t use it consistently, and insurance monitors its use and if they determine the % of use is lower than 95%, insurance will bill you instead? I thought people who require CPAP have severe enough sleep apnea that they could die from the lack of oxygen.

Also how is this related to depression, you said “this is the same problem” after you mentioned depression.

jimt1234• 2 years ago

Sorta related: My boomer mother is experiencing cognitive decline, probably the early stages of dementia. Her doctor said that as we age, blood vessels in the brain can get starved for blood and eventually dry up, making them useless. This is the biological explanation of her loss of memory and difficulty thinking. I asked if there's anything that can be done to at least slow this decline. She said the best medicine for the brain is physical exercise; it forces blood into the areas of the brain where blood vessels are at risk, prolonging its well-being.

BTW, I asked the doctor how much exercise is enough. Her response: If you smell the same when you're done exercising as when you started, it's not enough. I found that both humorous and helpful.

Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor or expert. If a loved-one is experiencing memory loss or difficulty thinking, see a doctor.

steve_adams_863• 2 years ago

There is a ton of research supporting this. It’s really important information.

Elsewhere in this topic I mentioned exercise helps me with depression. I’ve speculated that it’s due to simply making my brain work better. Depression often feels like your brain isn’t working. Sometimes it extends to your body. There’s more to it, but what exercise does to me feels a bit like turning the lights up a bit and taking some weights off (mentally and physically).

sn97• 2 years ago

You can see the physical activity guidelines mentioned here: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/where-should-my-priorit...

Note that these are minimums and that there's really no ceiling on getting benefits in the literature so long as you increase volume and intensity in a sustainable way and are eating and sleeping enough to sufficiently recover.

cycomanic4• 2 years ago

Weird that people seem to assert that causality is not established? There are hundreds to thousands of studies that show that pretty much all markers for mortality and morbidity go down with excercise, i.e. put someone regulalrly on a treadmill for a couple of month and pretty much all health markers improve.

People implying that the study shows only correlation really don't seem to understand how we establish causality in science.

prerok• 2 years ago

Well, I don't doubt that cardio fitness decreases the chance for morbidity and mortality, but in this study they only established correlation.

I think that in science we have to be extra careful just what we are saying. And saying that this study proves causality would be wrong. I am sure there are other studies that could (do?) prove it but this statistical analysis can only prove correlation.

bigfudge3• 2 years ago

We only have correlation for lots of important results. Smoking cigarettes is one example. Experiments are almost always better, and a lot of correlational research is terrible. But knowing something for sure doesn’t always require an experiment.

tea-coffee• 2 years ago

From the Methods section of the paper (under "study design"): "We also included meta-analyses that pooled data from primary prospective/retrospective cohort or case-control studies. These studies were the focus because of their ability to assess causality for observational research".

While "causality" is a strong word in the sentence above, the data is much stronger than simple correlation. Of course, outright causality has not been established, but the evidence to determine a predictive association is strong.

Fricken2• 2 years ago

Exercise is a four letter word for many on HN. Content posted here touting the various benefits of exercise is always met with mental gymnastics from commenters who would rather do anything but go out and break a sweat.

portaouflop2• 2 years ago

I used to be like that- for some reason I started exercising this year and it completely changed my life. I feel better than ever and it’s not like I’m training a lot, a couple of times per week.

If you’re on the fence and reading this definitely give it another shot

agumonkey2• 2 years ago

Tiny side note in case someone is interested: my health crashed in 2014, I used to be a runner, now I can't jog nor reach sweat levels of efforts. But you don't need to reach that level to restore/improve your health tremendously.

    - a tiny step to do small one leg squat
    - a kettle bell or any weight for deadlift

doing 10 repetition at low speed, low intensity[0] of the two abose everytime you get bored, anxious, or lost on a youtube rabbithole will feel like nothing, yet, over the week you'll start to feel muscle grow slowly, less joint pain, better posture, better ability to move, everything will feel easier thus having a better mood too.

once in the morning, once in the evening.. or maybe more as one sees fit, until you feel the drive to do more (usually a month of slow and pleasurable exercise will naturally lead to a desire to try more)

[0] real slow, like taichi slow.. no muscle burn, no fast breathing..

Workaccount24• 2 years ago

For HN's that want to get active, I cannot suggest getting a (higher tier) Garmin watch enough. I know you have the money so just drop the $800.

It's stats on stats on stats and essentially creates a "character health" panel for your own body. Charts, metrics, real time tracking and exportable data. There are achievement badges and social connections if that's your thing too (good for you and your SO).

For me, being able to see real-time metrics and real time improvement really amped up my motivation to go out an exercise. Rewards were no longer this mysterious ethereal thing that will maybe show up sometime in the future if I keep grinding. Day by day, I could see improvement and sure enough could feel it too.

huijzer• 2 years ago

No sorry but this is not how causality works. When event B happens a thousand times after event A, you cannot conclude that A causes B. For example, there could be a confounder, that is, a third event that triggers A and then B (so not A triggers B, but this third event triggers B). See The Book of Why by Pearl for more information on causality.

gjjydfhgd3• 2 years ago

You cannot conclude, but at the same time you should increase your probability of causality.

Keeping it unchanged is another kind of logical error.

bigfudge3• 2 years ago

But Pearls book explicitly argues for using correlational evidence to infer causation. The trick is to actually have a causal model and design observational studies that rule out as many alternative explanations as possible.

knallfrosch• 2 years ago

Can you give an example where causality is established then?

It sounds like I can hit you a 1,000 times, you feel pain a 1,000 times and you still don't believe there's a causality.

bjornsing2• 2 years ago

People implying that the study shows only correlation really don't seem to understand how we establish causality in science.

Or perhaps you don’t fully understand the challenges of establishing causality? Just because an intervention causes an improvement in some bio markers that are associated with lower mortality (unfortunately) does not mean that the intervention will cause lower mortality.

The classic example is vitamin D supplements: Higher vitamin D levels are associated with lower mortality in many medical conditions. Vitamin D supplements increase vitamin D levels. But vitamin D supplements seldom lower mortality.

Why? Probably because vitamin D is produced in the skin when we are in the sun. The more healthy subpopulation of any study will typically spend more time outside, so they will have higher vitamin D levels. But it’s (relative) health that causes higher vitamin D, not the other way around.

The only way to reliably establish causality is really an end-to-end randomized controlled trial (RCT). Stitching together two RCTs is not sufficient.

(Not saying that exercise does not lower mortality BTW, just that it’s complicated, and a study such as this is probably picking up two signals: one causal and one purely correlational.)

cycomanic4• 2 years ago

> People implying that the study shows only correlation really don't seem to understand how we establish causality in science.
Or perhaps you don’t fully understand the challenges of establishing causality? Just because an intervention causes an improvement in some bio markers that are associated with lower mortality (unfortunately) does not mean that the intervention will cause lower mortality.
The classic example is vitamin D supplements: Higher vitamin D levels are associated with lower mortality in many medical conditions. Vitamin D supplements increase vitamin D levels. But vitamin D supplements seldom lower mortality.

That is quite a simplification. The research as far as I know is that too low Vitamin D levels are associated with higher mortality, but that supplementation above a certain level is meaningless (and most caucasians can get those levels through normal sun exposure). So yes vitamin D supplements in general don't improve mortality.

Note also the situation here is completely different. The link between mortality and morbidity markers and exercise have been established in other studies. The study here establishes that this directly translates to a correlation between fitness and mortality. So in a way it's the opposite of the vitamin D case.

Why? Probably because vitamin D is produced in the skin when we are in the sun. The more healthy subpopulation of any study will typically spend more time outside, so they will have higher vitamin D levels. But it’s (relative) health that causes higher vitamin D, not the other way around.

You realise that you are proclaiming causality here?

The only way to reliably establish causality is really an end-to-end randomized controlled trial (RCT). Stitching together two RCTs is not sufficient.

A RCT does not establish causality. That's essentially my point. A single study/experiment never proofs causality. You need a theory to explain the causality and multiple studies that falsify other possible causality mechanisms. That has been done extensively for excercise and morbity/mortality, the current study just establishes that this also correlates in the bigger picture. So yes the study itself does not "proof" causality, it's just a piece in the bigger puzzle of causality.

(Not saying that exercise does not lower mortality BTW, just that it’s complicated, and a study such as this is probably picking up two signals: one causal and one purely correlational.)

indymike• 2 years ago

People implying that the study shows only correlation really don't seem to understand how we establish causality in science.

This is where explaining how causality is established really helps people understand what they are reading better, especially when confronted with something that is not light reading and summarizes a much larger, even heavier read. In other words, instead of saying people don't understand, maybe help people to understand.

uptownfunk• 2 years ago

Regardless of what it is, if I don’t get my morning run in, I am a very unpleasant person to be around! Running has changed my life in all ways- I am much more calm, tolerant, positive, energetic. If the whole country did a mandated morning run, assuming you’re able, I really think this world would be a much better place!!

Start slow, 5 minutes, breathe, go slow, and enjoy the beautiful weather here this time of year.

sahila• 2 years ago

Your comment just gave me a thought of how cool would it be if society had a mandated activity hour in the morning. I’m imagining loud speakers attached to poles outside making announcements and all businesses closed for that hour, and people all out and about exercising, walking, running, talking. Yes it’s a bit like school but society can be so much better if we prioritized good living!

kccqzy3• 2 years ago

You just described exactly what happened in some communist countries. This was what happened in USSR, and in China decades ago.

Grimm665• 2 years ago

"Winston sprang to attention in front of the telescreen, upon which the image of a youngish woman, scrawny but muscular, dressed in tunic and gym-shoes, had already appeared.

'Arms bending and stretching!' she rapped out. 'Take your time by me. One, two, three, four! One, two, three, four! Come on, comrades, put a bit of life into it! One, two, three, four! One, two, three, four! ...'"

squirrel6• 2 years ago

I’m going to plug Peter Attia, MD again here. In his podcast with Mike Joyner, MD (an exercise physiologist of Mayo Clinic) there is fairly detailed discussion of the literature on this topic.

panick21_2• 2 years ago

Yeah. I started walking with a backpack like he does. Its so much more enjoyable then jogging and I feel the impact on my whole body. Instead of slow jogging for Zone 2, rucking works well.

bhaney• 2 years ago

Sheesh, fine. I'll start jogging

keybored2• 2 years ago

Some of my peers are deep into running. I don’t get it. Running is sometimes fun for me but most often painful.

Then I overheard one of them (the fittest) say to a budding runner that he [should] do mostly easy sessions. Okay what’s easy to him? He said that so slow that it can feel awkward and unnatural. What?

Then I searched around and found out about Zone 2 and how you should do most of your work in that zone when building aerobic fitness. And that it is characterized by being able to hold a conversation, although strained.

I searched around and found atheletes like amateur ultrarunners say the same thing.

Then it hit me. I’ve probably been jogging a lot in Zone 3. Or higher? Because the harder you go the more benefit, right? That seems to be the basic logic for everything.[1] Relatively short, painful sessions. Have I been conditioning myself to associate cardio with more pain than is necessary for the average session?

So maybe I should just go on the stationary bike today, do a “conversatitional” (talk to myself) pace and listen to my audiobook for an hour? And try to not let my groin fall asleep.

[1] With nuances like go-to-failure for hypertrophy in weightlifting and more back-off-a-little for strength training.

terhechte• 2 years ago

I watch all streaming shows on a rowing machine with not-so-high speed and not-so-high resistance. The show keeps me entertained and sometimes I even forget that I'm rowing. Previously I did that with an iPad 12.9" next to the machine, but I've just started watching shows on the Quest 3 and that's way better.

oezi• 2 years ago

Uff that must get hot under the Quest.

sn97• 2 years ago

Doing this with a treadmill is honestly a gamechanger if you can't or don't want to do cardio outside (e.g., safety issues, heat, bad weather, etc.)

Even just walking on an incline can get your heart rate into the right zone so you get cardiovascular benefits while being so low in fatigue that you can get a lot of volume in.

Eventually your fitness will increase such that you'll run out of incline and speeds you can walk and you'll have to jog to stay in the zone.

portaouflop2• 2 years ago

All things need balance- don’t go too slow, don’t go too fast. If it feels right you know

011000113• 2 years ago

Are you carrying excess weight? I've been overweight most of my life. For a while in my 40s I hiked a lot and my BMI dropped into the normal range. When that happened, I became a runner. It felt amazing. I would run 5+ miles and felt like I could keep going forever. Once I put the weight back on(new relationship with someone who liked to eat), I couldn't run. It hurt and didn't feel good.

I don't know what the current research says, but I believe jogging is pretty hard on your joints vs running. I'd recommend hiking and fast walking as an alternative if you're looking to transition into running.

beezlebroxxxxxx3• 2 years ago

Unless you have actual mechanical problems with your joints or you're, as you said, heavy or out of normal BMI, then running is actually healthy for your joints. One caveat is the surface you run on. Running on softer surfaces than asphalt can be easier on your legs and feet.

Most injuries from running come from repetitive motion overuse and are muscular. People go out way too hard then discover that their muscles are weak for running (especially hips and glutes). Easing into running and doing some weightlifting or bodyweight exercises to supplement can usually keep you injury free and running well into old age. Some research shows it actually reducing the onset of osteoarthritis.

lukas0996• 2 years ago

Generally it’s harmful to spread memes of movement being something to fear.

FumblingBear2• 2 years ago

I'm 6'2" ~265 lbs (pretty fat) and around 30 years old. I started running to train for a 5k with some buds and found that I can comfortably run in zone 2 for about 1 hour with only mild soreness and minimal joint pain.

I've only really been getting into it in the past ~6 weeks or so, so still a beginner. Just wanted to chime in and say that running while fat is totally doable and you just gotta ease into it and try to avoid pain! Discomfort might be a part of the process, but running slowly in zone 2 has become quite relaxing and a great part of my day, despite having hated running when I was in the best shape of my life.

I used to only run in zone 4-5 because I focused on speed and just assumed misery was a necessary part of the running experience. It's been a total blessing to learn that it doesn't need to be like that at all!

Hope you can find a good balance for what works for you as a heavier person. Listening to your body and knowing your limitations are super important. Just wanted to share my experience as a heavier guy too.

cameldrv• 2 years ago

I had a very similar experience years ago, I tried to start running and I hated it. I went and got a heart rate monitor and found that after I was going for a while where I started to hate it, my heart was up at 180 or so. I started doing alternating run/walks so that I was averaging more like 145, and it was actually enjoyable and I'd get in the zone sometimes. After a while I managed to get up to half marathon distance. I'm a little skeptical about the zone 2 craze that's hit recently, but definitely, if you're just starting out, it's very easy to try to run like the other people you see on the trail and exhaust yourself. A heart rate monitor is very useful to help keep yourself in a reasonable range that's actually enjoyable and sustainable.

gjjydfhgd3• 2 years ago

Nassim Taleb wrote in recent months about Zone 2, 3 and relevant statistical analysis.

ktosobcy5• 2 years ago

I do love running and indeed it's better to jog slowly for longer time... though, to avoid injuries - please do exercises before and after because you can easily injure your (lower-)back and knees (talking from experience, chronic lower-back pain after ~20y of running…)

ulnarkressty• 2 years ago

There are no exercises that restore joints which are degenerating. Most likely you would have gotten 5-10 more pain-free years without the running, but it would have come anyway at some point. The increased cardio health and bone density does help sweeten the terrible deal though.

jimhefferon2• 2 years ago

Just a note to encourage you to see a physical therapist, before deciding that there's nothing to do. I've been a jogger since 1971, started having back pain all the time. A physical therapist gave me 15 minutes worth of exercises everyday. Pain gone. Good luck!

lukas0996• 2 years ago

This type of talk is harmful. The risks of not exercising absolutely dwarf the risks of exercising, and telling people that they are going to injure themselves by “doing it wrong” makes them less likely to exercise.

It also makes them more likely to feel pain, since pain has biological, psychological, and social inputs.

Dove• 2 years ago

I always hated running, but I had always been doing it for exercise. Perversely, this meant if I moved inefficiently and made the movement harder, I was doing better. I characterized running as "competitive suffering". No pain no gain, right? And like you, I always did more than felt good, and figured that meant I was doing it right.

But I don't think that way now. I want to enjoy moving. I want to move playfully and powerfully and efficiently. Exercise until it feels good, not until it feels bad. Love the body you have and take care of it and build it up, rather than hate-exercising to change it.

firethief2• 2 years ago

I went through the same paradigm shift with cycling. I used a cheap bike that was slow and heavy because higher efficiency wouldn't allow me to get exercise any faster. Then I got a nice road bike, and it's so much more fun to ride, so I'm riding a lot more.

SwiftyBug4• 2 years ago

I too hate to run. And I do it everyday. To me it's the time I get to be alone with my podcasts for an hour. Now I look forward to it every morning. I'm not sure in what zone I usually run, but my pace is usually around 6min/Km.

TomK322• 2 years ago

6min/km is an average pace, so I do wonder why you still hate it? Have you looked into your cadence? Are you steps too long or the shoes too hard? Or do you have to run through post-apocalyptic ruins?

anal_reactor• 2 years ago

When I was a kid I loved long-distance walking because it was "me-time". I have some introvert genes and I really needed to be on my own, away from people, and going for a walk was the only way I could achieve that.

Then I moved to a bike-friendly country and I started biking all the time. 30 minutes commute one way, 30 minutes back. I live right next to subway but god I hate public transport, and owning a car in this city is a massive headache.

Often I go for a small one-hour ride in the evening. I put on some music, start cycling, and thinking about things. I feel like I get into some kind of trance. When sitting at home I constantly feel "now what now what now what now what", but while cycling, I get into a rhythm and often; not always, but often; I get into a state where my thoughts kinda flow more easily, I can just think about something happy and focus on it, or maybe listen to the music. I live in a low-density area with biking lanes separated from most car traffic, so sometimes I get drunk or high and go cycling, which feels amazing - I have to focus and make it through one intersection, and after that the worst thing that can possibly happen is falling off the bike and getting a few bruises.

Sometimes I go for longer whole-day trips. When I reach the point of complete exhaustion the part of my brain that constantly worries about getting fired or possible WW3 shuts down and it's like being high but without drugs. I plan these trips so that I fight against the wind on my way "there" and then enjoy the help of the wind on my way back which becomes almost efforless. When I come home exhausted, the body experiences relaxation in ways impossible to achieve in other ways.

If you want advice, from my experience: 1. Stationary machines are a scam, 90% of pleasure comes from being outside. 2. Do exercise at a pace "I could keep on going like this forever" and then after an hour "oh not anymore" 3. Get something that keeps you entertained but doesn't require your attention. I don't recommend audiobooks because you need to keep actively listening. I recommend music or radio because if you zone out and stop listening, nothing bad happens. And sometimes try not having anything at all, just watch all the things around you.

samuell• 2 years ago

I love running and doing it consistently over ~10 years, always longing to get out again.

I'm the only one among my friends that do this, and I find this to be highly correlated with my running style: Really comfortable pace 7-10km through local forests, only (I tend to do more 10km more than 7km as I like it so much).

I learned this one time when I ran on a threadmill and realized the enormous difference between a slight variation in speed (from 11 to 9 km/h in my case, but the exact numbers don't matter), where I realized with this slight change I could go on indefinitely instead of being quickly exhausted.

Aperocky10• 2 years ago

This is absolutely true, when I started, I didn’t have a zone2 while running and running is just suffering.

But gradually I could hold a lower heart rate while running and now my zone 2 runs are actually faster than my fastest pace I could hold a year ago. Now I enjoy running more than cycling (though my fitness are still probably mostly derived by cycling).

echamussy• 2 years ago

This has been the biggest game changer for me. People often think they need to push it hard and they quickly fatigue, burn out and hate going running. The trick is to do a 80% of your running sessions in zone 2 and 20% in high intensity to increase VO2 max. If you are at the start that means sometimes walking on hills and that is ok. There is a great book about this: https://www.amazon.com/80-20-Running-Stronger-Training/dp/04...

bo10244• 2 years ago

Yes, most of experienced runners' running is at a conversational pace, often literally (this is why running groups are popular).

To explain why harder isn't better: improvement in running comes only a little from muscular strength, so that mental model is bad.

Improvement is primarily based on aerobic development of the cardiovascular system. This is your body's ability to burn mostly-fat with oxygen, deliver the energy (ATP molecules) to muscles, and remove waste products. So you develop more capillaries, your heart gets literally stronger, and this fat-burning pathway gets more efficient.

Going too hard pushes into the anaerobic zone (burning sugar without oxygen). This is good training in some ways, but it can be counterproductive to aerobic development and, most important, it's too hard to do very much volume so the amount of stimulus is limited. By keeping it easy, you can do a higher volume of purely aerobic stimulus.

djtango• 2 years ago

Yes....

I have been exclusively an anaerobic athlete for the past two years and my aerobic fitness has dropped to a shockingly low level. But I am oddly comfortable at 180-190bpm

I am slowly building in more aerobic cardio into my training but man cardio is just such a chore for me. It's always the first to go so it takes constant maintenance and it's time consuming...

TomK322• 2 years ago

I'm a cyclist, 100km without much effort, but a year ago I started running and it was super hard. The muscles are used differently, the body get impacted with every step and it takes some learning to find the right speed to reach whatever your target is. Pain kills the fun, the only way to succeed is to start slow and on short distances.

My goal was strengthening hip (one side has a three plates and a few screws in it) and knee mobility, with losing weight being an extra that I only reach this spring due to diet changes. I did find my Zone 2, where I can chat with a running buddy, and slowly extended the distances I run: Now 5km at 5:40m/km are the norm and 10km is just as possible. Injury-free so far and no ambition for a Marathon. The thing I now have to work at is the cadence which I (at 193cm) had trouble with on the bike as well, but shorter strides at a higher cadence are important to prevent knee injuries.

Whatever you do, I think sticking to it at least three times a week so you look forward for the next run, feel well during it and keep healthy. This is more important than beating records or running insane distances. Those goals are for those with the right genetics.

wjnc• 2 years ago

A part of become a good runner is letting go of expectations. There is a lot of quasi meditative written on the topic, but even if that’s not your thing: even if you walk/jog/walk to retain a constant, middle to low heart rate you could easily have the same effort as a trained runner doing some great mileage. The humbling part is part of the experience. Stay away from anything with speed for the first thousand miles. It will only lead to injuries. The good thing is, both condition and speed will improve very fast and the happy run feeling isn’t based on speed or distance. It’s being outside, alone, in silence with sounds and weather while doing something actively (but not overly). Did I mention I miss running? (Alas I am now missing some necessary cartilage.)

jajko3• 2 years ago

I never understood why people are chasing some stupid numbers, constantly comparing to each other, and then are unhappy or push themselves into injury. Such an unhealthy mindset for life overall.

That's really the opposite of what sports are supposed to be for 99.9% of the people. Who cares how life and training of some fastest guy in XYZ category looks like? Go at your pace, progress slowly also at your pace, also good strategy for life overall. You also don't take tips for driving in traffic from top formula 1 driver, do you, sorta worse than useless.

I do naturally push myself a bit when I run alone, to the point when even say 5-6km run makes me tired and drenched in sweat, but certainly not first 10-20 runs after some lull (like now broken foot, starting gently next week). And running is really just training for other more adrenaline sports for me, not chasing kms and preparing for races. But never pushing beyond whats OK for my body, and with experience one knows oneself very well in this regard.

nxobject• 2 years ago

I first trained to run long distances using a run-walk method for equal distances, which I then shortened – it took some convincing from an experienced runner that I wasn't "cheating", but when I realized that I was able to run at enough overload to train no matter what, it then clicked: it's about staying in motion; it's running, not sprinting, which are two different things indeed.

I now cycle for the same reasons as you do, although it's not as consistently intense as I would like.

Refusing232• 2 years ago

I've heard about this zone 2 as well, it makes sense. its a decent stable pace.

when i've been running i do similar. though i also do accellerate a bit and slow down, because its... more fun.

danielbln• 2 years ago

I've been streak running (so running at least a mile per day with no exceptions, mostly 5ks during the week, 10-20k on weekends) for almost 8 years (2817 days). The single best tip I give to everyone is "slow down! run slow!"

Of course, almost no-one adheres to it unless they are already well practiced. It's just deeply ingrained in peoples heads that "only if it's hard or painful it must work". Then people check out of running because it feels like crap, which it does if you always push too hard.

In my opinion, three of the most important rules are:

- slow down! does it feel "too slow"? Great, that's the right speed for most runs

- small steps! feels awkward at first, but is sooo much more efficient and soo much better for your joints

- land on mid- or forefoot (that happens mostly automatically with small steps)

pjc503• 2 years ago

It's just deeply ingrained in peoples heads that "only if it's hard or painful it must work".

Yes - this meme is extremely prevalent and extremely effective at putting people off exercise.

K0nserv• 2 years ago

I definitely went on this journey with my running. At first I would run very short distances at very high pace(zone 4/5), but I fell out of it. I picked up running again last year and ended up more in zone 3/4, but for the last six months I've been aiming for zone 2 in most of my runs.

I've had some knee pain recently so I've not been running much, focusing instead on knee strengthening exercise. On my last run I discovered this weird phenomenon were my knees stopped hurting if I ran faster with longer strides, it felt like I was "rolling through" each step which seemed less demanding for my knees. Perhaps my slow running style is just poor.

zknill• 2 years ago

Two things:

1. You want to land on the mid-foot. Heel-striking puts a lot of pressure up you leg and joints as you are basically braking with every step. Forefoot strike puts a lot of pressure on your calf and achilles as you have to 'bounce' on every foot-strike to support your body weight. A mid-foot strike is the most efficient transition of energy into and back out of the ground for forward motion. Small steps help you to find a mid-foot strike, large steps (over-striding) will create a heel-strike.

2. For lots of people taking up 'running' they (naturally) believe that they should run. But for many, running continuously will be beyond their zone-2 cardio. It's much easier to start with a jog/walk and build up. In the UK we have a brilliant app called 'couch-to-5k' which is a progressive build from essentially no fitness (walking some distance) up to being able to continuously jog for 5k.

gkfasdfasdf• 2 years ago

One way to easily achieve those three rules is to switch to barefoot-style shoes. They force you to slow down and take small steps. Don't have to go full 5-finger shoes either, just something with zero drop, a flexible sole and minimal cushion. I did this and my shin-splints and knee pain went away.

bpizzi3• 2 years ago

There's also value in spending some time in zone 5 [1]: this is where the heart is really trained as a muscle, and where the cardiovascular system is pushed to its limit (the famous vo2max: increasing vo2max is done in zone 5, for ex. with HIIT [2]).

Zone 2 is all about giving the mitochondries a chance to get better at providing a steady energy flow over a long time, mainly by optimizing for burning fat as fuel instead of glucose, avoiding lactate accumulation during the process [3].

In between, in zones 3 & 4, you get a little of both those ends of the spectrum, it's still helpful to a degree, but it's not really optimized: that why it's deemed preferable to spend the bulk of your training time in either your zone 2 or zone 5.

The ideal composition of a training period seems like 90% zone 2 and 10% zone 5, and going for more than 1h of zone 5 per week seems not that interesting. Also, mixing zone 2 and zone 5 in the same training session is not ideal, it's better to stay focused on one thing at at time.

[1] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/high-intensity-zo...

[2] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/vo2-max/

[3] https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/aerobic-zone-2-tr...

apatheticonion• 2 years ago

I got a indoor bicycle trainer (with power readings) and do intervals in Zone 5.

I created a custom "track" on TrainerDay and spend about 20 minutes 2-3 times a week doing this.

It feels like dying - but I like being able to extract the most value out of the lowest time investment

underwater• 2 years ago

You’re right, but for someone who doesn’t like running and isn’t a runner, keeping it simple and saying run slow is more helpful.

panick21_2• 2 years ago

Yes. That's why I march quickly with a heavy backpack. That should be zone 2.

Then occupationally I try to do sprints uphill, walk down. Get ready for another uphill sprint. I have been lazy on that unfortunately.

There is also a lot of evidence that sprinting is really good. I mean if you look at the bodies of Olympic sprinters vs Olympic runners, what do you want to develop?

melicerte• 2 years ago

From my experience about jogging (=regular running for your health, without a specific sport goal):

- get good shoes! this is probably the only piece of equipment you need (with a wind/rain jacket). Go to a shop when you can get advice. For me, flat soles is the way to go but I know there is debate on that question. Change them after 1000km at max (I've seen 500 km recommendation)

- follow the advice above zone 2 / zone 5 training. If unsure, slow down !

- avoid pain as much as possible otherwise your body will associate pain and run and you end up giving up (maybe not today, not tomorrow but one day for sure)

- buy a jumping rope and practice (you'll be amazed on the resulting spring effect while running)

- prefer solo session (group sessions are good if you want to talk but the most important thing is to run at your very own pace). you are better with some music or interesting podcasts

- vary the routes as much as possible. Even if you have only one route, start it from time to time on the other direction. There is no better training than on a route you don't know. Always running the same route is part of the reason you may quit.

- start your chronometer at the beginning of the session and try to forget it.

- find a friend and do some bike and run session from time to time (one run, one on the bike for like 20 minutes and then you change). It allows you to make longer run and recover while on the bike.

/!\ Just an opinion here, I'm not a specialist, just a +/- 20y regular runner

bluecalm• 2 years ago

A lot of pop-celebrity-educator types like Attia or Stephen Seiler say that. Then you look at how the professionals train and you see pyramidal distribution almost universally. Something like 85% below first lactate threshold, 12% in "sweet spot" and 3% in "zone 5".

I've spent a lot of time reading a lot about opinions and then looking at logs of professional athletes [1] (in cycling as I am most interested in that). My conclusion is that training comes down to:

1)do a lot of volume, the more the better

2)do some "hard stuff" - if those are hard intervals, longer "sweet spot" intervals or a a mix of those (like 5 minutes at threshold and then 15 seconds sprint, repeat n times) matters little

3)at pro level do some training specific to what you are going to do a lot in racing

1)is by far the most important and the most reliable predictor of overall fitness

[1] https://www.trainerroad.com/forum/t/pro-elite-training/14046 - is a nice thread with a lot of rides from whole weeks or months of training posted with power/heart rate data for various World Tour riders

[2]https://www.youtube.com/@sportscientist - Stephen Seiler's youtube channel; he has done work on analyzing how pro athletes train but his conclusions are very simplified and it seems made to sell "polarized" training idea. When you look at the details in the data no one trains like that, the final distribution is almost always pyramidal, not polarized

jdechko2• 2 years ago

I’ve heard about 75-85/25-15, but just round it to 80/20.

Zone 3/Tempo sessions can help to raise speed so that Z2 is faster for the same intensity.

Obviously lower intensity workouts can go for longer and the high z5 stuff for fairly short intervals across short sessions.

aqme28• 2 years ago

If you don’t like running, find an exercise you do enjoy. Running isn’t the only cardio out there. If you’re jumping through hoops to force yourself to enjoy it, try a few other activities. Me, I can only get myself to run if I’m engaged in sports.

deprecative• 2 years ago

Or, if you're like me, find the one that you have to tolerate least. I find no exercise to be enjoyable. I tolerate a couple things like rowing or walking.

Ylpertnodi• 2 years ago

Zone 2 works on a bicycle, too.

fransje262• 2 years ago

Then it hit me. I’ve probably been jogging a lot in Zone 3. Or higher? Because the harder you go the more benefit, right?

That's unfortunately not fully how it works. For maximum benefits, you would want to train your aerobic energy system, and to do that without risking injury, zone 2 is the recommended zone. The claim is that pain is gain, but more often than not, pain is your body telling you you are over the limit. By the description of your running experience, you were possibly closer to zone 4.

Of course, the body gets lazy, so you will want to vary your training. Repeat the same type of load, and your body will get efficient operating at that load, meaning your fitness gains will eventually stagnate. That's where the other zones come in.

At the zone 3/4 threshold you start using your anaerobic energy system more, with a stronger build-up of lactic acid as a by-product. Training in that range means your body will get more efficient at faster-paced work. Of course, as you build-up lactic acid, it also means that it is not a pace you can sustain.

But if you do short bursts of exercise at the lower-end of the anaerobic zone, you are actually contributing to making you aerobic energy system more efficient, without over-straining your body too much. And it's exactly the type of exercise variation your body needs to not get into the "lazy" mode.

The traditional way of approaching that is to have a base of zone 2 days (say 80% of your runs), and a few days of zone 3/low 4 days (say 20% of your runs), so that you alternate your loads.

Another approach with similar benefits, especially if you train less often, is the Fartlek approach, developed in Sweden in the 1930s. That's a type of training where you mix-up the load intensity during your runs, in about the same proportions. Fartlek means "speed-play", and it describes the method well. It's generally about approaching your training as you feel it that day. At some point during your run you might decided to increase the pace for a short time. Or you see a small hill that you can decide to attack at a faster pace, thereby changing your training zone. It's all about having fun and making your trainings less boring.

There was this belief in some circles until not that long ago that if you would enter a zone 3 or zone 4 training load during a zone 2 training day, you would mostly destroy the benefits of a "pure" zone 2 training. (Or the other way around, having some zone 2 stretches on zone 3/4 days). That turned out to be nonsense.

All in all, for good progress, and against boredom, Fartlek is the way to go, all the while keeping the bulk of your training in zone 2.

Fire-Dragon-DoL3• 2 years ago

Well, training zone 4-5 will speed up recovery so much that it's way easier to maintain zone 2 afterwards though

lukas0996• 2 years ago

As I understand, aerobic-only training increases your anaerobic threshold (you can do more without going anaerobic) while anaerobic training improves your anaerobic tolerance (you can continue to function with more lactic acid buildup)

fennecbutt• 2 years ago

Yeah as someone who (unfortunately) has the habit of exercising on and off that's what I heard/did as well: cardio where you're pushing yourself a little, but not so hard you feel like you want to stop right now or that you couldn't have a chat with someone running beside you.

Its weird though because HIIT is meant to be amazing for your body as well.

I suppose a mixture of both is good, and if I really think about it, we pretty much evolved to do that - low energy wandering to find prey, medium energy to chase prey and exhaust it, brief high intensity to catch up and finish the job. Then you get dinner.

Man, I should go back to the gym.

agumonkey2• 2 years ago

It took me some time to readjust my brain to stop aiming at extremes and focus at ~harmony. Doing exercise that don't burn you most of the time. Maybe later my body will be able to take a bigger hit, but in the mean time I'll take the slow maintenance mode.

Another trick was to focus on the whole body, I had a bad back but ran all my life like this, I now do light deadlift to restore better posture and better range of motion. Bad posture will make your muscle shrink and impede your running too.

andreareina• 2 years ago

For cycling you don't need the talk test, it should just feel easy. My breathing isn't elevated, my legs can feel there's resistance but there's no strain. Feel free to go 25 minutes on 5 minutes off, that really helps with the saddle comfort.

naveen99• 2 years ago

You can improve cardiac fitness by just walking an hour a day. the top distance runners are at bmi of 19 or lower. longevity is maximized at bmi of 26.

ab71e5• 2 years ago

I've heard the same thing, but for cycling. However I wonder if that is not mostly for people who train much more than a normal person, like a pro or your ultra marathon friends.

I understood the idea was that by running / cycling mostly in zone 2, you can put in more distance / time as you can recover more easily. It would not be possible to bike 30 hours in a week in zone 3, you would trash yourself.

But for someone like me, biking like 6-8 hours a week, I could easily do a lot of higher intensity, recovery time is not a bottleneck, other obligations in life are. So I really wonder if that still applies if you're only running / biking a few hours per week?

uvesten• 2 years ago

And try to not let my groin fall asleep.

I was "forced" into biking a few years ago (had an injury that prevented running) and had the same problem with the groin. I thought it was a natural thing with biking, but it can actually be quite bad for you in the long run, and it's very fixable! Sitting position and saddle makes a huge difference. Ofc position is the cheaper thing to fix, but saddle is easier.

Go to a bike shop and explain the problem and they'll help you find a saddle that fits you, don't go on with getting your groin numbed.

r00fus3• 2 years ago

Yes, it could be a fit issue - ie, seat height is wrong, need more padding in your clothing, etc.

grantmuller2• 2 years ago

I’ve been doing ultra marathons now for over a decade and the key is slow. Walk a lot at first if you have to. Some key resources getting started are Jeff Galloway and his run walk method. Once you build up to mostly running just mix in a few “strides” a week: pick two workouts and run 5x 30s at a “not quite sprint” speed. That’s it. Anything else you mix in (tempo, intervals, progressions, blah blah blah) is the last 10% and completely optional.

Your zone 2 speed will change over time. I do most of my training in zone 1 now, and that’s like a 9 minute per mile pace. When I started more than 15 years ago a 9 minute mile felt like death. Patience. This takes a lot of time.

JeremyNT• 2 years ago

I think conventional wisdom is "zone 2 for fitness / endurance, zone 3+ for performance." The interesting thing about this meta-analysis is it's discussing "baseline cardiorespiratory fitness" which - as I understand it - does correlate with vo2max.

As I understand it you can increase vo2max with exactly the type of training you are describing. Long efforts at zone2 can improve vo2 max, but the best improvements involve training at higher zones.

I certainly remember all the stories / headlines "walking is as good as running for cardiovascular health" etc which support the "just train zone 2" approach, but this study seems to me (a layperson) to contradict that.

Can anybody who is more versed in the research chime in? Does this study suggest that HIIT could reduce all cause mortality by improving vo2 max which improves baseline CRF (which is the value this the meta-analysis actually examined)?

sn97• 2 years ago

V02 max is correlated with good health outcomes precisely because it's a proxy for cardiovascular health and fitness. Seeking to improve V02 max with hacks for health benefits is like trying to improve grip strength (a proxy for strength) to improve health.

You can sustainably improve your cardiovascular health by just slowly increasing your volume of work done at 120-150 bpm over time. Say start with a program like Couch to 5k, then slowly add a day of light jogging here and there, adding 5 minutes here and there, until you're jogging 30+ miles per week.

If you want to more "optimally" improve your cardiovascular fitness, after building an aerobic base as above for 12+ weeks, you can introduce a high intensity session to get some of the unique benefits of those, but your low intensity steady state zone 2 stuff should remain at least 80% of your time spent endurance training.

wodenokoto• 2 years ago

I watch TV-series on the treadmill. The fastest walking pace where I can still keep up with the story and keep the shaking low enough to have a steady picture.

bart_spoon• 2 years ago

I've recently come to the same realization. I've always considered myself a more short-distance athlete, having been a sprinter and played more "burst" sports in high-school like football. My wife is a more long-distance runner. I've never understood why people like her were able to run for miles and miles without stopping. I could maybe keep up with her for the first mile, maybe 2, but then I was toast.

It's only recently when I learned about Zone 2 training that I came to understand that my training approach has always been backwards. I have always indexed my pace on what has always been a "respectable" mile time, on the assumption that if I run at that pace over and over, eventually I'll be able to go for longer at that pace. And that kind of is true, but not ever to the extent I can keep up with my wife.

Now, I am attempting to approach my running from a "time spent running > speed", and I'm finding that I indeed can run for 40+ minutes straight with no stopping, at a much lower pace than what I had been, and that it is much easier to make progress by running slowly for 40 minutes and gradually increase my pace over time than it is to run quickly for as long as I can and gradually increase the distance.

Fire-Dragon-DoL3• 2 years ago

I find way more enjoyable zone 4-5 training, but i do shadow boxing in front of the mirror, so it might differ. It's intense. zone 2 means it's a long thing that i don't want to do and i have time to think about it

adam_arthur• 2 years ago

No need to run even, you can stay in Zone 2 via walking. Incline on a treadmill makes required speeds quite low (2-3mph for most people).

I prefer it since it's at a pace where you can easily use your phone/browse the web at the same time.

Walking is also far more practical given that you walk 99% of the time in modern society. Might as well train for the thing you actually functionally do

Leherenn• 2 years ago

I think the oft missed bit about zone 2 is that the goal is to increase volume. If you simply reduce intensity without increasing volume, you'll get worse, not better.

If you only run 30 minutes once a week, you won't see as many gains if you do it in zone 2 than zone 3/4. But you also can't run 10h/w zone 4/5, so that's where the zone 2 comes into play. It allows to increase volume without increasing fatigue/risk of injury too much.

nikolay• 2 years ago

It's natural to run in these cases:

- chasing an animal during hunting;

- being chased by a beast;

- playing.

You don't have to really run for good cardio fitnes. In addition to HIIT, now there's IWT (Interval Walking Training), which yields similar results. Also, slow running seems to be more beneficial, too [0].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z71aHZ4scMs

YeBanKo• 2 years ago

I hated running and still do, but the only thing that makes it “fun” for me is running on the hills with intervals. On days I can sprint up a small hill the high afterwards is amazing. It does take a couple of nights of good sleep to recover though.

reify• 2 years ago

Not sure about this one.

When in my fourties I looked in the mirror one day and thought "my god man you have piled on a few pounds lately".

I immediately went out and joined a gym for a bit of indoor running

So, I went weekly for an hour or two. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

My I'm not sure!

I was happily running along on my treadmill one day, hreart rate at a constant 125bpm, whe suddenly there was an almighty commotion on the treadmill next to me.

The guy running next to me had collapsed.

He was 52 years old. I knew this because we had had a few chats.

He suffered a heart attack in the gym and died on the treadmill.

Poor guy. Poor family.

I gave up going to the gym after that.

maksimur5• 2 years ago

Something similar happened at the gym I went to years ago, although I wasn't there when it happened. The poor guy collapsed while lifting weights. WEIGHTS. I kept reluctantly going for a few days before stopping. Then on the radio I heard about a guy collapsing while running on the treadmill, just like your fellow gymgoer, and it was the last drop in the bucket that kept me from doing any exercise other than slow to moderately paced walks. The prospect of collapsing from something that should make me healthier terrifies me.

maksimur5• 2 years ago

*prospect of dying

mierz00• 2 years ago

This baffles me.

It’s well known that exercise is beneficial for overall health. Sure, some people die doing it just like some people die doing literally anything else.

DevX1012• 2 years ago

The data in the linked article from 20 million observations vs your 1 observed incident suggests you should keep going to the gym.

You have no idea what his pre-existing medical conditions were.

maksimur5• 2 years ago

I don't know about the guy in that specific incident, but in my case he was apparently healthy with no health complications, having had regular checkups on top of the mandatory ones (to be able to frequent a gym). This is the scary part for me.

joduplessis• 2 years ago

I've been running a consistent 10-11ish kilometers 5 times a week for the last 13 years. Recent (old) re-injury has forced me to switch to weight training about 6 times a week - and absolutely loving it. I'll probably switch to something like Crossfit next year to take up a more cardio-routine, but it's showed how you don't need to necessarily "run" to stay fit & healthy (although I do miss it a lot).

hyperthesis• 2 years ago

Can anyone give a sense of how much fitter 3.5 mL/kg/min is, in practical terms? e.g. distance cycled/how out of breath?

For every 1-MET (3.5 mL/kg/min) higher level of CRF, we identified substantial reductions in the risk of all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality. We also identified significant reductions in the risk of incident hypertension, heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation and type 2 diabetes per higher MET.
For most, a 1-MET higher level of CRF is attainable through a regular aerobic exercise programme. For example, in a large population-based observational study of over 90 000 participants, nearly 30% were able to increase their CRF by 1-MET (median follow-up was 6.3 years) without intervention.

sdimitris• 2 years ago

Cardio fitness is an established predictor of mortality and longevity, but testing it requires a proper maximal-exercise treadmill test that one needs to reach their maximum heart rate (costly & potentially risky).

Modern wearables can estimate VO2max but they require some sort of workout data, potentially excluding the majority of the population (=sedentary people). Our recent research at the University of Cambridge developed and validated one of the first models for non-workout VO2max estimation. Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-022-00719-1

TLDR: we can now estimate cardio-fitness just by tracking your everyday movement/heart rate

ubermonkey• 2 years ago

This is why I keep cycling even in periods when I'm not that into cycling. At 54, I know that if I lose a lot of fitness, it'll be much harder to regain.

Fire-Dragon-DoL3• 2 years ago

For people who misinterpreted the title like me, thinking that exercising is negative:

Conclusion

Our findings showed that high CRF is strongly associated with lower risk of premature mortality, incident chronic conditions (ie, hypertension, heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation, dementia and depression), and poor prognosis in those with existing chronic conditions. The consistency of the evidence across a variety of health outcomes demonstrates the importance of CRF and the need to incorporate this measure in routine clinical and public health practice. Future studies should focus on outcomes with limited evidence and where the certainty of the evidence was rated as very low by improving study quality.

Hayatabad3• 2 years ago

unless you're sprinting, jogging and any form of slow running destroys the knees, loses muscles mass, enlarges the heart and provides no health value. Bunch of amateurs.

nojvek3• 2 years ago

Source?

Hayatabad3• 2 years ago

Doug McGuff, "Body by Science". Downvotes to my very helpful and lifesaving original comment is by losers who will run till they die.

septic-liqueur• 2 years ago

Been doing Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu for over two years now for twice a week. My cardio fitness definitely increased and I feel it has done great for my mental state.

But man, in all other physical aspects I feel it has not done well to my body. Neck cranks, twisted spine, sore throat from getting choked, occasional black eye.

So I'm kind of torn between the improvement to my cardio and mental health and on the other side every other physical aspect

alex-korr• 2 years ago

Volume trumps everything for cycling/running - these are low skill so to speak sports. 60 mpw for 18 weeks will get most people into a Boston qualifying time. Zone 1/2 also has the advantage of lowering the risk of injury, which is critical for volume.

ChiperSoft• 2 years ago

Okay, cool, but until science finds a way to teach my AuDHD addled brain to not scream in agony at the mere thought of doing exercise, this knowledge does nothing but make me depressed.

Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality

Related Stories