Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality(bjsm.bmj.com)
bjsm.bmj.com
Cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/58/10/556
556 comments
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)
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)
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.
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.
I’ve never understood what a mid-foot strike is. My foot has an arch. My heel touches the ground, ball of foot and toes touch the ground. Mid-foot doesn’t.
To me its more like you should strike with the forefoot but with the foot almost flat (as opposed to running like on tiptoes) so it feels as if you are instantly rolling onto the mid part of the shoe. Or put slightly differently- the middle of the shoe is what catches the groud first as it moves backwards relative to your overall direction of travel. There was a whole huge thing about barefoot running but doing miles of it on grass really did help me retrain as a former heel striker.
Just behind the ball of your foot so as to load your arch in a downward motion. Your heel will almost definitely touch the ground. This, as opposed to a forefoot strike, where you're landing just behind your toes and loading in a rearward motion (think sprinting). Your heel probably will not touch the ground.
Both of these are hard to do in typical "running shoes" which build a significant amount of rubber into the heel, while also being fairly thin up front.
Both of these are hard to do in typical "running shoes" which build a significant amount of rubber into the heel, while also being fairly thin up front.
Heel strike - heel lands first
Midfoot strike - heel and ball land same time
Forefoot strike - ball of foot lands first
Midfoot strike - heel and ball land same time
Forefoot strike - ball of foot lands first
I've never understood striking guidance either. It seems that over long enough distances everyone is a heel striker too, it's just more efficient. So I'd assume that any advice you hear is more pace-dependent than it appears.
+1 for Couch to 5k. I’ve successfully used it a couple times.
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.
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.
Rucking. Get a back pack with a chest and waist strap, put in weights (increase over time) or buy a cheap weight lifting belt (Velcro fine) and attach a rope and something that drags (I use an old wheel).
Low impact, good for core strength. Zone 2 approved.
If you are wealthy they make specific back packs or I bought a tacti-cool one on Temu for cheap.
Outlive by Peter Attia is pretty good for more ideas on how to lengthen the mobile portion of your life.
Low impact, good for core strength. Zone 2 approved.
If you are wealthy they make specific back packs or I bought a tacti-cool one on Temu for cheap.
Outlive by Peter Attia is pretty good for more ideas on how to lengthen the mobile portion of your life.
Try cycling, it uses completely different set of leg muscles and its my goto when my knees start hurting.
The two sports also complements each other very well since the muscle groups support each other and cardiovascular side of things are the same.
The two sports also complements each other very well since the muscle groups support each other and cardiovascular side of things are the same.
I mostly cycle. When I run it is usually on trails, and during winter. It is much easier on the knees than running on pavement.
I've noticed that, too. This video is interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj9ZgQgQvBk and might explain some of it, but I also think that the kinematics of your legs works better at higher speeds (or at walking speeds) - jogging seems the worst for joints!
Same here with the knee pain after running. Any particular knee strengthening exercises recommendations? There is so much out there these days.
The youtuber "knees over toes guy" seems to be largely acknowledged by The Internet as having a novel, free and effective way to strengthen and injury-proof your knees. Worked very well for me.
> 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.
Yes - this meme is extremely prevalent and extremely effective at putting people off exercise.
I think it is simply because when you are a kid, "running" means "going as fast as possible"
"Running" in the sport of "Running" means something different than "running" on the playground (which is more akin to sprinting).
"Running" in the sport of "Running" means something different than "running" on the playground (which is more akin to sprinting).
Should add that with serious running training it is hard and painful, but more on aggregate. Even when I'm just base building, and maybe doing 1 or 2 'kinda hard but not all out' sessions a week, the accumulated load feels hard.
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.
[deleted]
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...
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...
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
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
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
- 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
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.
For someone who doesn't like running and isn't a runner... I'd advise them to try a different exercise ;-)
Seriously, I have a friend who assumes that exercise == going to the gym... and she hates the gym. But she keeps trying to force that round peg into a square hole!
I've tried asking her, "well, do you like tennis? Dancing? Rock climbing?" But apparently those don't count.
Seriously, I have a friend who assumes that exercise == going to the gym... and she hates the gym. But she keeps trying to force that round peg into a square hole!
I've tried asking her, "well, do you like tennis? Dancing? Rock climbing?" But apparently those don't count.
This is a fair and, as far as I can tell, accurate response. There's a huge difference between new runner strategy and optimized runner strategy. Any optimized fitness/habit plan should be just complex enough that you will maintain it, and that's different for everyone.
Another way to look at this: "ideal" has different definitions depending on whether it's maintainable for any given individual, as well as a definition for "what's the best way to do this if you take willpower out of the equation?"
Another way to look at this: "ideal" has different definitions depending on whether it's maintainable for any given individual, as well as a definition for "what's the best way to do this if you take willpower out of the equation?"
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
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
Slightly tangential, but getting an e-bike has got me doing way more miles (by probably an order of magnitude) than I have ever done before - and way more total exercise overall.
Since you can dial in the assist, it basically turns a regular bike into an exercise bike. Or conversely, an exercise bike that actually rides around outside. If I want to fry my legs on a hill, I can drop the assist and really feel the grind. If I want to take it easy on the hill back home though, I can boost the assist so that it takes practically no effort.
It's just this amazing tool that reliably will trick your brain into working out. You take the ebike out because it is so effortless to ride, but inevitably you end up lowering the assist to feel the burn a bit on your rides.
Since you can dial in the assist, it basically turns a regular bike into an exercise bike. Or conversely, an exercise bike that actually rides around outside. If I want to fry my legs on a hill, I can drop the assist and really feel the grind. If I want to take it easy on the hill back home though, I can boost the assist so that it takes practically no effort.
It's just this amazing tool that reliably will trick your brain into working out. You take the ebike out because it is so effortless to ride, but inevitably you end up lowering the assist to feel the burn a bit on your rides.
> I like being able to extract the most value out of the lowest time investment
Biking to work using Strava is like this for me.
It gamifies exercise in a very addictive manner. Getting a PR, being quickest on a segment or becoming a local legend. There is always someone or something to beat.
Biking to work using Strava is like this for me.
It gamifies exercise in a very addictive manner. Getting a PR, being quickest on a segment or becoming a local legend. There is always someone or something to beat.
I had to back off that and instead do other games (ie, wandrer.earth gives you points for "new miles") because I got a bit too competitive and borderline dangerous.
Besides, I got records and fastest times when e.g. wind was at my back or the lights all went my way - so I knew it wasn't just my effort & just happenstance.
I still use Strava - mostly as a personal blog of my efforts & take a picture of wildlife or crazy videos to share with others sometimes.
Besides, I got records and fastest times when e.g. wind was at my back or the lights all went my way - so I knew it wasn't just my effort & just happenstance.
I still use Strava - mostly as a personal blog of my efforts & take a picture of wildlife or crazy videos to share with others sometimes.
Ha I had to stop tracking my bike commutes because I was going way too hard for Strava times on them. It got to the point where it was sorta dangerous... Love the app for my fun rides tho!
You sacrifice a segment then go like a mad thing for the one you need to win. And you curse if a dog walker gets in the way, sort of encouraging antisocial behaviour. But if you can get past that stage it’s pretty rewarding to ignore segments and go for longer records (eg 20km, 50km etc).
Yeah, I'm in Team Rowing (indoor) myself, and 30min of HIIT every week is HELL. My next session is in 1h...
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?
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?
Sprinters also lift a lot of weights. The extreme example is sprint cyclists, who are jokingly called weightlifters who happen to ride a bike [0]
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/4xioza/track_cyclists...
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/4xioza/track_cyclists...
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
I now cycle for the same reasons as you do, although it's not as consistently intense as I would like.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
I’ve seen this happen. We call it having great cardiovascular fitness but not so great metabolic fitness. One of the reasons that zone 2 or maintaining aerobic fitness seems to have such an impact on longevity is that it requires and reinforces metabolic fitness.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is why strength and conditioning is so important. A lot of knee pain is not from the impact on the joint but because of the repetitive twisting and rolling because glutes and other muscles are not able to hold knees and other joints stable, especially when tired.
I said jogging was hard on your joints, not running. Two very different mechanics there.
There isn't some hard and fast distinction between jogging and running that suddenly makes jogging bad for your joints and running not. "Jogging" just a name for a pace. The vast majority of people run "easy" pace runs at a jog. Jogging is running, but sprinting is not jogging. Sprinting and jogging are both running. Both are perfectly fine for your joints.
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.
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.
> running while fat is totally doable
> around 30 years old
These two things go together. I'm almost 50 and in my experience you're not going to want to do this after 40 but it depends on many factors (shoes, joint health, body mechanics, what you run on..).
> around 30 years old
These two things go together. I'm almost 50 and in my experience you're not going to want to do this after 40 but it depends on many factors (shoes, joint health, body mechanics, what you run on..).
Absolutely! I'm definitely not trying to minimize the impact that aging has on our bodies, just add another data point to the discussion :)
I've just seen people my age and younger suggest that running while fat is too hard and give up on it but I've started to enjoy it for the first time in my life despite my weight.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I've just seen people my age and younger suggest that running while fat is too hard and give up on it but I've started to enjoy it for the first time in my life despite my weight.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Generally it’s harmful to spread memes of movement being something to fear.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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)?
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm not sure. It's not that I feel a huge discomfort or that anything hurts. It's just kind of pointless I think. I love martial arts and parkour, though. Maybe because the exercise is not the thing itself, but a byproduct of the activity?
It's very much not pointless. It can be difficult, initially, to reason about and iterate on activities that don't confer immediate feedback. These types of activities build effects over long periods of time, but everything we know says they're good for us. For example, it's hard to regret being overly winded during occasional martial arts or parkour when you're not.
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.
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.
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
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
[deleted]
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…)
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.
It also makes them more likely to feel pain, since pain has biological, psychological, and social inputs.
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.
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!
I have degenerated disk already so PT and exercises helps somewhat but it's not going away sadly...
Many, many people have such mechanical abnormalities and never experience pain. Many people without such abnormalities do experience pain. There’s surprisingly little association between them.
Yeah, that's another thing that neurologist and neurosurgeon told me... all in all last year changed my perspective on medicine and how much we actually know about our bodies :D
Sorry you can't run. Best wishes.
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.
Nassim Taleb wrote in recent months about Zone 2, 3 and relevant statistical analysis.
> 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.
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.
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)
That is globally correct, yes.
Some schools of training were maintaining for a long time that the process was fairly black and white, and that both systems should be trained separately, or else you would loose the training benefit of either.. Nature is rarely so stubbornly segregated, and, as it turns out, mixed training is perfectly fine.
Aerobic training will help you increase your anaerobic threshold, but training slightly above the threshold can be more efficient at increasing that threshold, if you are fit enough to recover from the lactic build-up before your next training. (Or if you have the luxury to increase your resting period so that you are fully recovered before you train again)
Anaerobic training will improve your anaerobic tolerance, but a good aerobic base will also help you improve your anaerobic tolerance, as your body will become more efficient at recycling the lactic acid back into ATP, delaying the moment when your muscles will be too saturated to function at the required level.
In general, while exercising, your muscles are using both ATP production means, aerobic and anaerobic. So, once more, you can see that by going slightly above your lactate threshold (but still with a good aerobic energy contribution) you are also contributing to improve your anaerobic tolerance, by staying longer in a range where your body needs to work harder to deal with the excess lactic build up. (Longer than a "pure" anaerobic training that cannot be sustained)
Some schools of training were maintaining for a long time that the process was fairly black and white, and that both systems should be trained separately, or else you would loose the training benefit of either.. Nature is rarely so stubbornly segregated, and, as it turns out, mixed training is perfectly fine.
Aerobic training will help you increase your anaerobic threshold, but training slightly above the threshold can be more efficient at increasing that threshold, if you are fit enough to recover from the lactic build-up before your next training. (Or if you have the luxury to increase your resting period so that you are fully recovered before you train again)
Anaerobic training will improve your anaerobic tolerance, but a good aerobic base will also help you improve your anaerobic tolerance, as your body will become more efficient at recycling the lactic acid back into ATP, delaying the moment when your muscles will be too saturated to function at the required level.
In general, while exercising, your muscles are using both ATP production means, aerobic and anaerobic. So, once more, you can see that by going slightly above your lactate threshold (but still with a good aerobic energy contribution) you are also contributing to improve your anaerobic tolerance, by staying longer in a range where your body needs to work harder to deal with the excess lactic build up. (Longer than a "pure" anaerobic training that cannot be sustained)
Well, training zone 4-5 will speed up recovery so much that it's way easier to maintain zone 2 afterwards though
> 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.
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.
Yes, it could be a fit issue - ie, seat height is wrong, need more padding in your clothing, etc.
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.
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.
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.
when i've been running i do similar. though i also do accellerate a bit and slow down, because its... more fun.
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
- 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
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.
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
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.
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.
All things need balance- don’t go too slow, don’t go too fast.
If it feels right you know
[deleted]
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.
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.
Zone 2 works on a bicycle, too.
[deleted]
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.
People implying that the study shows only correlation really don't seem to understand how we establish causality in science.
> 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.)
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.)
> > 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.)
> 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.)
> > 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?
Yes, with emphasis on the word probably. Just like I will happily proclaim that exercise probably lowers mortality.
> 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.
The beauty of an end-to-end RCT is that it effectively neutralizes other possible causality mechanisms. You do not seem to appreciate this. My impression is that your reasoning is more in line with evidence based medicine (EBM), rather than the hypothetico-deductive method that I personally subscribe to. In my way of thinking there will never be definitive “proof” of causality, but I will happily take a drug that has gone through sufficiently powerful RCTs that failed to prove its ineffectiveness (and harm).
> You realise that you are proclaiming causality here?
Yes, with emphasis on the word probably. Just like I will happily proclaim that exercise probably lowers mortality.
> 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.
The beauty of an end-to-end RCT is that it effectively neutralizes other possible causality mechanisms. You do not seem to appreciate this. My impression is that your reasoning is more in line with evidence based medicine (EBM), rather than the hypothetico-deductive method that I personally subscribe to. In my way of thinking there will never be definitive “proof” of causality, but I will happily take a drug that has gone through sufficiently powerful RCTs that failed to prove its ineffectiveness (and harm).
> 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.
This might be a good heuristic for assigning confidence to results, but in theory, an RCT absolutely does establish causality, assuming internal, external, construct, and statistical validity of the study.
Multiple studies may not be better than one good study (assuming the above), which can be tested by looking at the leverage in a meta-anlaysis.
Having a theory is kind of orthogonal to a study finding a true positive result. Almost every published study, true or false, invokes some kind of theory, true or false. There is a joke in the soft sciences along the lines that you make up a new theory for every study.
This might be a good heuristic for assigning confidence to results, but in theory, an RCT absolutely does establish causality, assuming internal, external, construct, and statistical validity of the study.
Multiple studies may not be better than one good study (assuming the above), which can be tested by looking at the leverage in a meta-anlaysis.
Having a theory is kind of orthogonal to a study finding a true positive result. Almost every published study, true or false, invokes some kind of theory, true or false. There is a joke in the soft sciences along the lines that you make up a new theory for every study.
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.
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.
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.
That's a bit different.
There's no reasonable path to reverse-causality with smoking. "People prone to developing lung cancer are more likely to take up smoking" doesn't really make sense.
On the other hand, "Fat and unhealthy people are more prone not to exercise" is a reasonable reverse-causality position, for all kind of reasons. Your knees hurt, you're self-conscious, it's extremely uncomfortable, your fat jiggles, etc.
I'm not saying direct causality doesn't exist here, I'm just saying that reverse-causality is reasonable, whereas with smoking it is not. Assuming causation from this particular correlation is harder than it is with smoking.
There's no reasonable path to reverse-causality with smoking. "People prone to developing lung cancer are more likely to take up smoking" doesn't really make sense.
On the other hand, "Fat and unhealthy people are more prone not to exercise" is a reasonable reverse-causality position, for all kind of reasons. Your knees hurt, you're self-conscious, it's extremely uncomfortable, your fat jiggles, etc.
I'm not saying direct causality doesn't exist here, I'm just saying that reverse-causality is reasonable, whereas with smoking it is not. Assuming causation from this particular correlation is harder than it is with smoking.
"People who smoke are more likely to do other things that the medical establishment condemns" is a plausible non-causal explanation for the correlation between smoking and lung cancer.
I think that we just have to look at the best explanation for the current data to determine causality, but it’s always a guess.
I think that we just have to look at the best explanation for the current data to determine causality, but it’s always a guess.
That is a plausible explanation for a present correlation, but I think less so for when the correlation was first noted.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
If you’re on the fence and reading this definitely give it another shot
Second this, it doesn't just help your body. Your mental health will also see benefits.
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.
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..
- a tiny step to do small one leg squat
- a kettle bell or any weight for deadlift
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..
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.
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.
Just saw this, but for others wanted to add that you don't need the $800 watch for access to most of the health and fitness metrics and supporting features.
Pretty much any of the more recent Forerunner series will do. The Forerunner 165 starts at $250 and the Forerunner 255 has been discounted to this level several times as well. They both have nearly all the available metrics and many sports modes, as well as triathlon modes most of us probably never need. They sync with the same (free) Garmin Connect smartphone app and cloud service.
So with any of these watches, you can sample the Garmin features. Upgrading to a more expensive watch later would mostly be for case material and size, aesthetics, or conspicuous consumption reasons.
The biggest functional difference between their lower price and expensive watches is that they limit on-watch mapping to only the expensive watches starting around $400-600 when on sale. The cheaper watches can only show a "breadcrumb" trail of your path in an ongoing activity, but no mapping of the surrounding terrain, roads, or landmarks.
There is also a funny distinction where their "outdoor" watches work a bit differently than their "health fitness" watches, developed in separate product divisions. But, these differences seem to be narrowing in recent years.
The other major feature tier is "music" which is a roughly $50-100 premium for the Forerunner 165 and 255 having non-music and music variants. This is where the watch can store and play music through bluetooth headphones, without a phone being present.
Pretty much any of the more recent Forerunner series will do. The Forerunner 165 starts at $250 and the Forerunner 255 has been discounted to this level several times as well. They both have nearly all the available metrics and many sports modes, as well as triathlon modes most of us probably never need. They sync with the same (free) Garmin Connect smartphone app and cloud service.
So with any of these watches, you can sample the Garmin features. Upgrading to a more expensive watch later would mostly be for case material and size, aesthetics, or conspicuous consumption reasons.
The biggest functional difference between their lower price and expensive watches is that they limit on-watch mapping to only the expensive watches starting around $400-600 when on sale. The cheaper watches can only show a "breadcrumb" trail of your path in an ongoing activity, but no mapping of the surrounding terrain, roads, or landmarks.
There is also a funny distinction where their "outdoor" watches work a bit differently than their "health fitness" watches, developed in separate product divisions. But, these differences seem to be narrowing in recent years.
The other major feature tier is "music" which is a roughly $50-100 premium for the Forerunner 165 and 255 having non-music and music variants. This is where the watch can store and play music through bluetooth headphones, without a phone being present.
It's not about the money, man. At a price like $800 you could hire out a personal trainer for 3 months of twice weekly sessions. No way some wrist gadget is going to do the average computer weenie more good than receiving regularly scheduled and personally tailored training regimens.
Given that most weenies aren't crazy about regular people (especially the fitness types), that the watch lasts more than 3 months, and that weenies love dense character stat screens and leveling, I really could not disagree more. It's a borderline science fiction cyborg health tracking device.
Also, for most of the weenies here, an $800 purchase isn't too rough. They have decent $500 and $300 dollar options, but the available amount stats and tracking goes down.
Also, for most of the weenies here, an $800 purchase isn't too rough. They have decent $500 and $300 dollar options, but the available amount stats and tracking goes down.
It's not always black and white. I have a high end Garmin and pay quite a bit for personal training. Personally if I was forced between the two, I'd pick the Garmin and all the functions/training regimens it contains. However, I'm the type of person that gets a lot of joy from being outdoors mountain biking or trail running. Spent years in the gym getting big and all that, but it just doesn't do it for me like shredding down steep embankments or hitting large gaps on a bike does, examining all my data and stats afterwards.
IMO, it's all about what drives someone - if they are going to be more motivated by someone training them, then they should do that. But if they are going to have more longevity by paying for an overpriced watch, maybe that's the better choice. Maybe even both? One thing is for sure - speaking in absolutes doesn't apply here.
IMO, it's all about what drives someone - if they are going to be more motivated by someone training them, then they should do that. But if they are going to have more longevity by paying for an overpriced watch, maybe that's the better choice. Maybe even both? One thing is for sure - speaking in absolutes doesn't apply here.
I don't know what kind of computer weenies you know but speaking for myself: needing to interact with someone to get exercise would add a major hurdle for me. OTOH, I'm really getting in to minmaxing myself in Garmin...
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.
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.
Thank you! That seems to be the issue with many commenter here, they believe you can have a single experiment that somehow proofs causality.
The same scepticism would not be brought against many "hard science" experiments, even though they do the exact same thing, falsify alternative explanations until they have high certainty that they have causality.
The same scepticism would not be brought against many "hard science" experiments, even though they do the exact same thing, falsify alternative explanations until they have high certainty that they have causality.
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.
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.
Consider this quote:
"Every time we send 5 fire trucks to a fire, the damage is 10x than when we only send one fire truck. We've observed this 1000 times. And still you don't believe that the fire trucks are causing the damage."
In this case it should be absolutely clear that A (lots of trucks) aren't causing B (lots of damage), but rather a third aspect, C (size of fire) is causing both A and B. Insisting that A causes B will result in completely counterproductive interventions, like "send only one truck to all fires".
The same thing could be true for cardiovascular fitness. If people are sick, they're much less likely to running or hiking up a mountain. So rather than poor cardio fitness (A) causing high mortality (B), it could be that a third thing, sickness (C) is causing both A and B. If that is the case, then shaming people who are sick into trying to exercise, instead of making them healthy enough so that they feel like running, is likely to make things worse rather than better.
How do you tell the difference? Well the "gold standard" is randomized controlled trials. Pick 3,000 random people. Tell 1000 of them to exercise more, and 1000 of them to exercise less, and 1000 leave alone, and compare. If the "exercise more" group is healthier at the end of 10 years, that's decent evidence that "exercise more" is a useful intervention.
Failing that, you can think of other possible confounding factors and control for them. Don't just ask how much they exercise; ask how old they are, and how well they are, how stressed they are, and loads of other factors which might both cause both A and B, and use statistical methods to detect whether one of those factors is actually a better explanation than "A -> B".
"Every time we send 5 fire trucks to a fire, the damage is 10x than when we only send one fire truck. We've observed this 1000 times. And still you don't believe that the fire trucks are causing the damage."
In this case it should be absolutely clear that A (lots of trucks) aren't causing B (lots of damage), but rather a third aspect, C (size of fire) is causing both A and B. Insisting that A causes B will result in completely counterproductive interventions, like "send only one truck to all fires".
The same thing could be true for cardiovascular fitness. If people are sick, they're much less likely to running or hiking up a mountain. So rather than poor cardio fitness (A) causing high mortality (B), it could be that a third thing, sickness (C) is causing both A and B. If that is the case, then shaming people who are sick into trying to exercise, instead of making them healthy enough so that they feel like running, is likely to make things worse rather than better.
How do you tell the difference? Well the "gold standard" is randomized controlled trials. Pick 3,000 random people. Tell 1000 of them to exercise more, and 1000 of them to exercise less, and 1000 leave alone, and compare. If the "exercise more" group is healthier at the end of 10 years, that's decent evidence that "exercise more" is a useful intervention.
Failing that, you can think of other possible confounding factors and control for them. Don't just ask how much they exercise; ask how old they are, and how well they are, how stressed they are, and loads of other factors which might both cause both A and B, and use statistical methods to detect whether one of those factors is actually a better explanation than "A -> B".
You cannot conclude, but at the same time you should increase your probability of causality.
Keeping it unchanged is another kind of logical error.
Keeping it unchanged is another kind of logical error.
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.
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
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
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?
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?
I biked through Amsterdam as a commuter along with everyone else for a week, and it just blew me away. Everyone was absolutely predictable and part of the “school of fish”. No hesitation or ill-conceived politeness.
It was only a week but it was so refreshing. I think about this experience daily when driving because I think of how much time would be saved if people just knew absolutely when to take their turn and took it; instead of processing each decision and deciding based on their current mood. People knew the damn rules and norms.
So, I think it’s a function of having a critical mass, being necessary, and being embedded already as a norm. I don’t believe a city could make riding without a helmet legal and expect any sort of increase in safety …
It was only a week but it was so refreshing. I think about this experience daily when driving because I think of how much time would be saved if people just knew absolutely when to take their turn and took it; instead of processing each decision and deciding based on their current mood. People knew the damn rules and norms.
So, I think it’s a function of having a critical mass, being necessary, and being embedded already as a norm. I don’t believe a city could make riding without a helmet legal and expect any sort of increase in safety …
This doesn’t work when driving primarily because cars are generally moving a lot fast and are less maneuverable that bikes in avoiding conflict.
Three things are different in the Netherlands:
1. Almost everyone cycles. So all drivers are themselves cyclists. So they treat other cyclists with consideration.
2. The road/cycle infrastructure is set up to separate cars and bikes wherever possible. And where they share routes, cars are often explicitly second class users ("auto te gast" - cars, you're guests).
3. In any collision between a car and a bike, the driver will almost always be the one found at fault.
1. Almost everyone cycles. So all drivers are themselves cyclists. So they treat other cyclists with consideration.
2. The road/cycle infrastructure is set up to separate cars and bikes wherever possible. And where they share routes, cars are often explicitly second class users ("auto te gast" - cars, you're guests).
3. In any collision between a car and a bike, the driver will almost always be the one found at fault.
late2part(1)
Biking in Amsterdam is leagues safer then biking in most places in the US, though. The risks are different. Helmets aren't as important if most of your crashes are going to be with another low-speed, mostly-soft bodied cyclist. Traffic and pedestrians are pretty separated and you have your own lanes to cycle in. I'm also pretty sure that a lot of biking is convenient: The local grocery store is just a short bike ride but it'd take 15 minutes by car.
Most biking in the US is biking shared with cars. You probably won't have a bike lane. Most likely, you aren't commuting or going to the grocery store - the grocery store might take 15 minutes of driving but 30 minutes of biking - if you can even go the most direct route legally. Longer biking sessions generally means more risk. I'll take the helmet in places that I must defend myself against automobiles on an unsafe path.
Most biking in the US is biking shared with cars. You probably won't have a bike lane. Most likely, you aren't commuting or going to the grocery store - the grocery store might take 15 minutes of driving but 30 minutes of biking - if you can even go the most direct route legally. Longer biking sessions generally means more risk. I'll take the helmet in places that I must defend myself against automobiles on an unsafe path.
Just remember not to get lulled into a false sense of security just because you're wearing a helmet. PPE is by far the least effective safety precaution.
If you have to ride alongside cars, make sure you practice defensive riding.
If you have to ride alongside cars, make sure you practice defensive riding.
Be predictable. Be visible [1]. Take the lane when needed (if you're traveling fast enough).
[1] https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/698001
[1] https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/698001
Yes this is annoying in all these same debates which point to Netherland / Denmark - the infrastructure elsewhere is just not there. Lanes shared with cars (or just taking away from car lane so no normal cars fits in anymore) isn't a solution, just adding friction danger zone. Or dedicated bicycle lanes wide enough for a single row of cyclists, if even that.
Also look at those 'old' basic bikes they use there, you don't need more on those flatlands and everybody is fine with 20-25kmh. Add tech bros or generally young folks with fast ebikes and escooters going 50kmh and things change.
Also look at those 'old' basic bikes they use there, you don't need more on those flatlands and everybody is fine with 20-25kmh. Add tech bros or generally young folks with fast ebikes and escooters going 50kmh and things change.
> Yes this is annoying in all these same debates which point to Netherland / Denmark - the infrastructure elsewhere is just not there
That's why we point to them. The infrastructure didn't exist in Holland either, until they choose to build it.
That's why we point to them. The infrastructure didn't exist in Holland either, until they choose to build it.
Yes but there was room for it, you noticed the wide streets? Most European city centers don't have that extra room for 1 dedicated bike path on each side, at least not cities I've lived in. That's cca 4m each side requirement, you would have to tear down whole rows of 150-500 year old buildings which are often protected.
Even Amsterdam has streets which have 0 room, but generally city center is blocked/too expensive to most car traffic to even enter so they manage.
If it would be a easy problem to solve, it would be done or at least almost done at this point. And something tells me it requires certain type of population where respect to others is way above average, that's not granted.
Even Amsterdam has streets which have 0 room, but generally city center is blocked/too expensive to most car traffic to even enter so they manage.
If it would be a easy problem to solve, it would be done or at least almost done at this point. And something tells me it requires certain type of population where respect to others is way above average, that's not granted.
> Yes but there was room for it, you noticed the wide streets? Most European city centers don't have that extra room for 1 dedicated bike path on each side
Many Dutch cities don't either, that's why they disallow cars entirely. Really only Rotterdam has spacious roads thanks to the bombings. Ann I understanding you correctly?
> And something tells me it requires certain type of population where respect to others is way above average, that's not granted.
I'm not sure where you are the casuality here. In my experience it's the more human centred infrastructure design that encourages a higher level of social engagement and respect for others.
But regardless I would find it tragic to condem certain cultures as being inherently incapable of these things.
> If it would be a easy problem to solve, it would be done or at least almost done at this point.
It wasn't begun that long ago in the Netherlands. The vast majority of infrastructure has been built since the turn of the century. It takes a while for other places to really realise that their current models aren't working, and even longer for them to really learn the lessons of the Dutch.
But if you look at cities like London, Leipzig, Barcelona, Paris or further afield to Montreal for example then many cities are actually beginning to successfully integrate Dutch design practices.
Many Dutch cities don't either, that's why they disallow cars entirely. Really only Rotterdam has spacious roads thanks to the bombings. Ann I understanding you correctly?
> And something tells me it requires certain type of population where respect to others is way above average, that's not granted.
I'm not sure where you are the casuality here. In my experience it's the more human centred infrastructure design that encourages a higher level of social engagement and respect for others.
But regardless I would find it tragic to condem certain cultures as being inherently incapable of these things.
> If it would be a easy problem to solve, it would be done or at least almost done at this point.
It wasn't begun that long ago in the Netherlands. The vast majority of infrastructure has been built since the turn of the century. It takes a while for other places to really realise that their current models aren't working, and even longer for them to really learn the lessons of the Dutch.
But if you look at cities like London, Leipzig, Barcelona, Paris or further afield to Montreal for example then many cities are actually beginning to successfully integrate Dutch design practices.
Dutch bicycle infrastructure didn’t just happen, our postwar governments were all set on building car infrastructure. They were even planning to demolish huge parts of old Amsterdam to build a highway right through the city. It took two decades of protest and a lot of traffic deaths before the government started the development of dedicated bicycle infrastructure in the 1980’s. You can read more here: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...
Amsterdam’s answer to faster vehicles is to move them to the main road with other faster traffic. Although it is now moving to slow down nearly all traffic inside the city to a 30km/h limit, which will improve cyclist safety a lot.
Amsterdam’s answer to faster vehicles is to move them to the main road with other faster traffic. Although it is now moving to slow down nearly all traffic inside the city to a 30km/h limit, which will improve cyclist safety a lot.
Helmets are also overrated.
I've fallen many times and not once I've hit my head. They are probably useful in high speed impacts, but then you are fucked anyways.
Gloves are much more useful on a daily basis. Saved my hand many times.
I've fallen many times and not once I've hit my head. They are probably useful in high speed impacts, but then you are fucked anyways.
Gloves are much more useful on a daily basis. Saved my hand many times.
Counter point: in the last 40 years I have come off my bike only about 10 times and on 2 of those my helmet was so badly damaged that I think without it my head would have been seriously hurt. Those were both low-speed accidents, one was being hit from behind by a car and the other was hitting a nasty pothole.
I've also seen a friend have a high-speed impact: he was airlifted to hospital, survived and has mostly recovered. Looking at the state of his helmet I have no doubt that he would have died at the scene without it.
I've also seen a friend have a high-speed impact: he was airlifted to hospital, survived and has mostly recovered. Looking at the state of his helmet I have no doubt that he would have died at the scene without it.
A hit to hands or head has a different lethality.
In Amsterdam they are commuting, and in a fantastic infrastructure where cars get red lights when bicycles approach on an intersecting cycleway. That's probably the main reason for safety and why they ride so much.
There's very few places where the light changes automatically for bikes in Amsterdam - all that I can remember now, don't. The large majority of lights do respond to input from pressing the cross button (also pressable by bycicles), but it's not automated.
They do use "change on approach" lights outside of the cities way more, but in cities it's usually only for trams and buses.
They do use "change on approach" lights outside of the cities way more, but in cities it's usually only for trams and buses.
Since Amsterdam is a "peak biking" city, I wouldn't trust the cited study to even apply there and would think that an independent study would be needed since it would be likely an outlier.
What about other Dutch cities like Zwolle, the Hague, Utrecht, Nijmegen, Emmen, Middleburg etc etc etc?
I know I'll never be a motorcyclist because I don't want to ruin my hair with the helmet. People with curly hair will know what I'm talking about.
more like because it’s safe and there are penalties for injuring pedestrians and cyclists, and because the infrastructure is great.
not riding a bike because a helmet is ??uncomfortable?? is ridiculous and probably self-selecting
not riding a bike because a helmet is ??uncomfortable?? is ridiculous and probably self-selecting
Is it that ridiculous? Big tech tracking shows that basically any inconvenience at all causes people to drop off. The page taking half a second longer to load and now you’ve lost a few sales.
There isn’t going to be anyone consciously thinking “I’m not gonna ride because I have to wear a helmet” but instead “eh I can’t be bothered riding” without digging too much in to why.
There isn’t going to be anyone consciously thinking “I’m not gonna ride because I have to wear a helmet” but instead “eh I can’t be bothered riding” without digging too much in to why.
Bicycle helmets are big. You can't just put them away in your bag when you're done with them. So you will have to carry the helmet alongside your bags etc.
eimrine(3)
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!
A better alternative law would be to provide free helmets. People can choose not to use them out of preference but at least they'll have one to make that choice with.
Nothing is free, you're just making other people pay for helmets that likely wouldn't be used.
Everyone that comments that "nothing is free" is just being a pedant in a way that means the conversation can't usually go forward as easily.
People do understand that with government programs, "free" means taxpayer funded. As in, almost everyone understands that. The comment isn't needed. Those comments are the reason I put things like "fare free public transport" - not because it is more realistic, but because arguing with these comments is exhausting.
Society is full of things other people helped pay for - and you most definitely use them. Your health insurance company pools money together to cover everyone's ills, for example. You don't pay individually for your infrastructure use - other people help you pay so that you can get electricity. And so on. You can't have modern society without this.
People do understand that with government programs, "free" means taxpayer funded. As in, almost everyone understands that. The comment isn't needed. Those comments are the reason I put things like "fare free public transport" - not because it is more realistic, but because arguing with these comments is exhausting.
Society is full of things other people helped pay for - and you most definitely use them. Your health insurance company pools money together to cover everyone's ills, for example. You don't pay individually for your infrastructure use - other people help you pay so that you can get electricity. And so on. You can't have modern society without this.
Neither is public healthcare system but if a free helmet for everyone reduces healthcare costs globally, ultimately it’s other people paying less.
(I guess it doesn’t work if you don’t have public healthcare)
(I guess it doesn’t work if you don’t have public healthcare)
Saying other things that aren't free doesn't make the first thing become free.
People who don't use helmets don't do it because they are too expensive. They do it because it's not convenient to carry, because it's not cool, because it messes your hair, because you need somewhere to store it. (Not) Free helmets solve zero of these problems, it's just a bad idea.
People who don't use helmets don't do it because they are too expensive. They do it because it's not convenient to carry, because it's not cool, because it messes your hair, because you need somewhere to store it. (Not) Free helmets solve zero of these problems, it's just a bad idea.
You are just nitpicking on semantics. If the total cost of publicly funded healthcare is reduced from people using helmets then that could result in not increasing what you are "making other people pay" even though you are also offering helmets at no cost. That is what most people would consider free.
People who don't use helmets for whatever reason would be more inclined to do so if they could just go pick one up, and didn't have to pay for them in a store. Even if those reasons are not that they are expensive. It's a great idea.
People who don't use helmets for whatever reason would be more inclined to do so if they could just go pick one up, and didn't have to pay for them in a store. Even if those reasons are not that they are expensive. It's a great idea.
Well we disagree. I think there's way more effective things you can do, and this is demonstrated by the netherlands where I live. For an idea to be good it doesn't just have to in theory be net positive, many things can be net positive if you use tax money for them. The problem is we don't have an infinite government or infinite resources or time, so we should pick good measures.
All the cities maintaining a bunch of locations full of helmets for free pickup would just create more waste. I bet people would pick them up and just discard them when it wouldn't be convenient to use them. And nobody wants to pickup and wear a discarded helmet that is dirty and was in the elements so there would be huge waste. You can have a similar effect without any waste by just having a class that teaches children to ride bycicles at school and tells them the benefits of helmets and keeps helmets there for that one class. This memory would be with you for life, and you'd make your own decision.
If helmets were cost prohibitive I'd be with you, I believe in using tax money for that kind of stuff, but price is not the reason people don't use helmets.
All the cities maintaining a bunch of locations full of helmets for free pickup would just create more waste. I bet people would pick them up and just discard them when it wouldn't be convenient to use them. And nobody wants to pickup and wear a discarded helmet that is dirty and was in the elements so there would be huge waste. You can have a similar effect without any waste by just having a class that teaches children to ride bycicles at school and tells them the benefits of helmets and keeps helmets there for that one class. This memory would be with you for life, and you'd make your own decision.
If helmets were cost prohibitive I'd be with you, I believe in using tax money for that kind of stuff, but price is not the reason people don't use helmets.
I’m not the op of this proposal, I never said it was a good idea (neither that it’s bad, I just don’t know). I just said that IF it was a good idea, it would cost less overall.
Except roads for car drivers and then people wonder about this mysterious infinite latent demand for free roads that they call "induced demand". The demand for things that cost nothing is infinite.
Roads have huge utility to society. Unless you want the ambulance to go get you on a unpaved mess and take you back to the hospital banging all over the back. Or that they fetch you by bycicle.
Well obviously roads have benefits. Nobody is saying to abolish roads. But the marginal benefits of more road density really fall off beyond the minimum of “having a road”. Compare two options within a city
1. Redesign a 2-lane (each direction) highway into a 4-lane highway at the cost of several hundred million tax dollars, over the course of a few years.
2. Leave the highway smaller. Re-zone a city to allow small shops within residential neighborhoods, and up-zone all residential land to allow up to 4-story townhomes and condos. Spend tens of millions of tax dollars building a robust cycling highway, and make it safe for people to accomplish basic errands within a close proximity to their home.
For #2, spending of tax dollars is less and people are healthier. You still have roads, but people need to drive on them much less often.
So when the next city proposes an $840M highway revamp [1], consider how you could spend 10% of that funding to increase mobility around the city for residents ($84M could build a lot of safe separated bike highways). While at the same time allowing private development to make natural improvements to neighborhoods by opening new corner stores and shops along bike routes
[1] https://www.i395-miami.com/
1. Redesign a 2-lane (each direction) highway into a 4-lane highway at the cost of several hundred million tax dollars, over the course of a few years.
2. Leave the highway smaller. Re-zone a city to allow small shops within residential neighborhoods, and up-zone all residential land to allow up to 4-story townhomes and condos. Spend tens of millions of tax dollars building a robust cycling highway, and make it safe for people to accomplish basic errands within a close proximity to their home.
For #2, spending of tax dollars is less and people are healthier. You still have roads, but people need to drive on them much less often.
So when the next city proposes an $840M highway revamp [1], consider how you could spend 10% of that funding to increase mobility around the city for residents ($84M could build a lot of safe separated bike highways). While at the same time allowing private development to make natural improvements to neighborhoods by opening new corner stores and shops along bike routes
[1] https://www.i395-miami.com/
free just means tax paid
its a nice idea, but i think adults should pay for their own helmets
however, children... sure. give them one.
its a nice idea, but i think adults should pay for their own helmets
however, children... sure. give them one.
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.
Appearing like a woman buys you even more space than riding without a helmet
https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/04/01/safest-bicycle-helmet-has-b...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17064655/
https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/04/01/safest-bicycle-helmet-has-b...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17064655/
The only data I’ve seen on that is one guy who self-sampled and self-reported. I’d be happy to see more.
Appears he did self sample, but reporting was quantitative with a ultrasonic sensor.
In the UK.
https://drianwalker.com/overtaking/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-...
In the UK.
https://drianwalker.com/overtaking/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-...
Where’s that data?
It's in the UK, using ultrasonic sensors. Dr. Ian Walker has provided follow-up as well
https://drianwalker.com/overtaking/
https://drianwalker.com/overtaking/
Bicycle helmets are not designed for impact with a car. They are designed to handle falls to the ground. The forces are quite different.
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.
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.
That sounds like the sort of stuff you’d remember because it validates what you already want to believe
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/
https://peterattiamd.com/all-things-vo2-max/
It's pretty funny seeing people today seethe about the obvious (being unfit is terrible for you) the same way people in the 1970s were seething about the obvious (smoking is bad for you).
There is a reason why life expectancy was dropping in the US years before covid hit.
There is a reason why life expectancy was dropping in the US years before covid hit.
I asked my parents about the "when was smoking viewed as bad for you" bit. They said late 1980s to early 1990s. They said no one thought it was bad for you in the 1970s -- maybe a stinky habit, that is it.
I grew up in the 70s, and that’s hilariously wrong. Cigarettes had warning labels in the 60s, and cigarettes were called “coffin nails” long before that.
There’s a line in a film from 1983 called The Outsiders which is like “give me one of those cancer sticks”, so I think smoking was understood to be harmful earlier than that.
What obvious-to-others things are you surprised by?
Nicotine suppresses appetite and is also a potent nootropic. Consuming nicotine in losenge or gum form doesn't have any of the ill effects of smoking or vaping. It's also virtually impossible for a nicotine naive person to become addicted through losenges.
It's still addictive and likely to be horrible for your heart (smoke causes cancer, but nicotine even in low doses causes what looks like heart issues, though unlike cancer these might be reversible).
always wondered what the effects on the gums would be since the saliva concentration would be higher with gums/lozenges and it’s primarily surface absorption vs. airborne nicotine.
Smoking does reduce appetite and therefore can help in weight loss/getting in shape. (I don’t smoke)
[deleted]
Getting rid of all the tar and chemicals takes a significant daily toll on the body, which has a definite caloric cost.
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.
There is no advantage to smoking as a diver. Gas consumption rate in scuba diving has nothing to do with lung absorption capacity (unless you have some kind of serious medical condition). We're usually not exerting at anywhere near VO2 Max. The urge to breathe faster is driven mainly by stress and CO2 levels. New divers are often nervous and flailing around due to having poor trim and buoyancy control. Experienced instructors don't have that problem regardless of smoking status.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most humans are just incredibly bad at impulse control.
To be fair, our diets and lifestyles changed drastically in the 20th century.
When we're bombarded with advertisements of highly caloric, processed, sugary foods engineered to flood our taste buds and trigger dopamine, we can't be surprised that people get addicted to it. Combine that with forms of entertainment, transportation, and a work culture that keep us sedentary, and it's no wonder many people struggle with being physically healthy.
When we're bombarded with advertisements of highly caloric, processed, sugary foods engineered to flood our taste buds and trigger dopamine, we can't be surprised that people get addicted to it. Combine that with forms of entertainment, transportation, and a work culture that keep us sedentary, and it's no wonder many people struggle with being physically healthy.
indeed, a lot has changed from when we lived on rural farms doing manual labor.
People aren't going back to the farms, so we need to adopt new behaviors and norms around self control. There is simply no viable alternative.
People aren't going back to the farms, so we need to adopt new behaviors and norms around self control. There is simply no viable alternative.
I would suggest that in the next 5 years or so if ozempic and others don't turn out to be cancer causing or have more than awful side effects that we'll see a large drop in obesity, as obesity isn't an easy thing to change. Likely other competitors will come along and use a similar mechanism and Novo won't be able to charge $1000 a month for it any longer allowing 80-85% of those who are overweight to give it a shot.
I think it will be very interesting to see how it plays out and has a lot of positive potential.
I don't think it is very sustainable to have 50% of the population on a biologic medication to help self control, but hopefully it will help individuals and societies change norms.
I don't think it is very sustainable to have 50% of the population on a biologic medication to help self control, but hopefully it will help individuals and societies change norms.
Having to take a medicine every day for the rest of your life instead of just not stuffing your face is positive potential for you? Jesus Christ.
re-read the post.
Paradoxically, lowering your weight artificially may be causing more damage than good because of the muscle loss.
Being fit is not just about low fat. It requires a similar discipline required to control what you eat.
Being fit is not just about low fat. It requires a similar discipline required to control what you eat.
As I understand, ozempic only helps you lose up to 15% of your body weight. Most overweight people are much more than 15% overweight!
Well, then once you've lost 15%, just start again..!
To frame the discussion as one of either/or alternatives is self-defeating, a more productive framing is what are the various strategies we can employ to reduce obesity?
There are plenty which are unrelated to self-control or personal discipline. One is a sugar tax (not a huge fan personally but it exists).
One I do like is to regulate the advertising and labeling of food. Frankly I'd like to know how many calories I'm eating or being persuaded to eat, pretty much all the time. This is a work in progress with the FDA gradually expanding the types of restaurants that are required to disclose caloric and nutrition info about their food. Frankly I'd like to see it required in advertisements too, if you're advertising a pizza, the advertisement should disclose that there are 2,000 calories in that pizza, many people actually are not aware.
Not that I ever thought they were serving health food at the Cheesecake Factory, but I recently learned that their peanut butter cheesecake is 1650 calories per slice! Almost a full day's calories in one slice of cake! Nearly everyone I've talked to about it knew it was a gut buster but no one guessed that high.
Those cheesecakes are only for special occasions now and it's because C.F. is required to disclose calories, I'd be fatter if not for this simple government intervention. Nothing to do with self control. Apologies to C.F. but with the nation's obesity rate cresting 50% I consider this a wholly reasonable imposition on their free speech rights or whatever.
There are plenty which are unrelated to self-control or personal discipline. One is a sugar tax (not a huge fan personally but it exists).
One I do like is to regulate the advertising and labeling of food. Frankly I'd like to know how many calories I'm eating or being persuaded to eat, pretty much all the time. This is a work in progress with the FDA gradually expanding the types of restaurants that are required to disclose caloric and nutrition info about their food. Frankly I'd like to see it required in advertisements too, if you're advertising a pizza, the advertisement should disclose that there are 2,000 calories in that pizza, many people actually are not aware.
Not that I ever thought they were serving health food at the Cheesecake Factory, but I recently learned that their peanut butter cheesecake is 1650 calories per slice! Almost a full day's calories in one slice of cake! Nearly everyone I've talked to about it knew it was a gut buster but no one guessed that high.
Those cheesecakes are only for special occasions now and it's because C.F. is required to disclose calories, I'd be fatter if not for this simple government intervention. Nothing to do with self control. Apologies to C.F. but with the nation's obesity rate cresting 50% I consider this a wholly reasonable imposition on their free speech rights or whatever.
> Those cheesecakes are only for special occasions now and it's because C.F. is required to disclose calories, I'd be fatter if not for this simple government intervention. Nothing to do with self control
How is eating a cake from a store "nothing to do with self control". It's not like you were buying vegetables and turns out big sugar made the vegetables be worse for you. You not knowing if the cake was 800 calories or 1.6k calories makes it no less about self control. Even to avoid eating it at 1.6k, it's still all just self control.
How is eating a cake from a store "nothing to do with self control". It's not like you were buying vegetables and turns out big sugar made the vegetables be worse for you. You not knowing if the cake was 800 calories or 1.6k calories makes it no less about self control. Even to avoid eating it at 1.6k, it's still all just self control.
No, it's much easier to pass on dessert when you know it's 1600 calories as opposed to if you think it's much less. In essence the disclosure of how bad that particular item really is reduces the amount of willpower required to avoid it. If this wasn't true, all these restaurants wouldn't have kept the calorie counts of these dishes secret until the government forced them to share that info.
I mean this is common sense, the more clearly you understand the negatives of an action, the more likely you are to avoid it. And we have plenty of evidence that this works to alter people's behavior through looking at the effects of e.g. cigarette labeling.
Like up until the 1950s we actually didn't have good evidence that cigarettes were bad for you, and doctors actually got on TV and endorsed specific brands, so a lot of people weren't sure. Eventually the studies were produced and doctors started recommending against smoking and smoking started to decline. It didn't decline because people became Badass Willpower Monks, it declined because they were given access to more and better information.
I mean this is common sense, the more clearly you understand the negatives of an action, the more likely you are to avoid it. And we have plenty of evidence that this works to alter people's behavior through looking at the effects of e.g. cigarette labeling.
Like up until the 1950s we actually didn't have good evidence that cigarettes were bad for you, and doctors actually got on TV and endorsed specific brands, so a lot of people weren't sure. Eventually the studies were produced and doctors started recommending against smoking and smoking started to decline. It didn't decline because people became Badass Willpower Monks, it declined because they were given access to more and better information.
"Less self control needed" which is your argument in this follow-up comment is very different from "Nothing to do with self control" in your original comment.
I'm for calorie labeling, but view it simply as a tool and aid for those who choose and try to self regulate.
There is no amount of labeling that will make a different if there isn't a human expressing agency to read the label and take action.
I think there are tons of helpful strategies, but the critical infrastructure t Needed is more self actualized agency.
This isn't an insult or dismissal, but a hope we can all become better humans.
There is no amount of labeling that will make a different if there isn't a human expressing agency to read the label and take action.
I think there are tons of helpful strategies, but the critical infrastructure t Needed is more self actualized agency.
This isn't an insult or dismissal, but a hope we can all become better humans.
Why every time obesity is brought up it's always because the environment is bad, food is bad, lifestyle is unavoidable instead of just being a personal responsibility?
There was a relatively recent study that found that BMR has actually been dropping over the last 30 years. The difference in men was large enough (7% iirc) that it would explain most of the obesity epidemic.
Why it's dropping is still a n mystery though.
Nevertheless, the solution is still the same: eat less.
The study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445668/
Why it's dropping is still a n mystery though.
Nevertheless, the solution is still the same: eat less.
The study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10445668/
I would like to see replications, as it could just be bad data:
"It is also possible that the long-term reduction in BMR represents methodological artefacts. In the early years, measurements of BMR were often made using mouthpieces to collect respiratory gases, and recently such devices have been shown to elevate BMR by around 6%. A second possibility is that early measurements paid less attention to controlling ambient temperature to ensure individuals were at thermoneutral temperatures."
"It is also possible that the long-term reduction in BMR represents methodological artefacts. In the early years, measurements of BMR were often made using mouthpieces to collect respiratory gases, and recently such devices have been shown to elevate BMR by around 6%. A second possibility is that early measurements paid less attention to controlling ambient temperature to ensure individuals were at thermoneutral temperatures."
Thanks for the link to this very strong and now open study.
The authors suggest that the decreased consumption of saturated fats over the last 30+ years is likely to contribute to the reduction in basal metabolic rate and gains in weight. The mouse model component of the study provides some support.
The authors suggest that the decreased consumption of saturated fats over the last 30+ years is likely to contribute to the reduction in basal metabolic rate and gains in weight. The mouse model component of the study provides some support.
I'm not an expert on the literature, but I do know Bmr isn't a fixed number. It is a function of activity, muscle mass, and other factors.
It seems that a largely sedentary lifestyle free from exertion matches both.
It would be insightful to see the sensitivity analysis for BMR with respect to strength, activity, muscle mass, ect.
I know there is a body of data about environmental hormones and BMR, ect, but my understanding is that the impact is barely measurable with large sample sizes. I expect that it can't hold a candle to activity. In my personal experience, my BMR can easily modulate by 1000 calories based on body composition and behavior. That is a huge impact.
It seems that a largely sedentary lifestyle free from exertion matches both.
It would be insightful to see the sensitivity analysis for BMR with respect to strength, activity, muscle mass, ect.
I know there is a body of data about environmental hormones and BMR, ect, but my understanding is that the impact is barely measurable with large sample sizes. I expect that it can't hold a candle to activity. In my personal experience, my BMR can easily modulate by 1000 calories based on body composition and behavior. That is a huge impact.
> Nevertheless, the solution is still the same: eat less.
Or make life harder! Quit the elevator. Quit the automatic transmission (and car). Quit the online shopping.
Making some progress with self-checkouts and pointless lineups at airports.
Less jokingly (hard to outrun a bad diet) but more pedanticly: drinking less (alcohol and calorific beverages) might be a better start than eating less.
Or make life harder! Quit the elevator. Quit the automatic transmission (and car). Quit the online shopping.
Making some progress with self-checkouts and pointless lineups at airports.
Less jokingly (hard to outrun a bad diet) but more pedanticly: drinking less (alcohol and calorific beverages) might be a better start than eating less.
[deleted]
It would be interesting to correlate these results with data about reduced testosteron levels and sperm counts/fertility, especially whether one of these leads the other or whether both go down at the same time.
lack of physical activity (sedentary job + sedentary entertainment) + shitty diet = lower testosterone
lower testosterone = lower lean body mass (you gain tens of pounds of muscle on TRT even without exercising)
lower lean body mass = lower BMR. an average doughy 200 pound guy and a 200 pound athlete have vastly different caloric requirements.
lower testosterone = lower lean body mass (you gain tens of pounds of muscle on TRT even without exercising)
lower lean body mass = lower BMR. an average doughy 200 pound guy and a 200 pound athlete have vastly different caloric requirements.
clearly there is no "just" to it as a level of effort on the part of those who are overweight. It is not an easy road and something like 95% of the people fail at it, so I guess it depends on what your meaning of "just" is.
“Just“ means the options and consequences are clear. The actions are the hard part.
People are faced with the choice between eating more or living longer, and nearly everyone knows it.
People are faced with the choice between eating more or living longer, and nearly everyone knows it.
People here complain a lot about social media and the tuning for engagement which makes people addicted to their phones etc..
Well compared to the food industry industry that's nothing. Incidentally they learned their trade from the tobacco industry who invested heavily in the junk food industry in the 60s. [1]
All to say, much of modern food (and the advertising around it) is designed to get people hooked on junk food from a very early age. So saying just eat less is a simplistic solution that requires people to act against a conditioning that has been aggressively imprinted on them from a very early age.
[1] https://lsa.umich.edu/psych/news-events/all-news/faculty-new...
Well compared to the food industry industry that's nothing. Incidentally they learned their trade from the tobacco industry who invested heavily in the junk food industry in the 60s. [1]
All to say, much of modern food (and the advertising around it) is designed to get people hooked on junk food from a very early age. So saying just eat less is a simplistic solution that requires people to act against a conditioning that has been aggressively imprinted on them from a very early age.
[1] https://lsa.umich.edu/psych/news-events/all-news/faculty-new...
Fortunately, people have minds which can override their programming.
Most of life is acting against one conditioned impulse in favor of a better one.
Every solution to every problem involves overcoming ones own detrimental impulses in favor of positive ones.
Every solution to every problem involves overcoming ones own detrimental impulses in favor of positive ones.
It can take months to go from obese to not obese through calorie restriction
Of course. I was responding to the time spent (out of ones day), opposed to calendar days of not eating.
That said, people can make pretty rapid weight loss without eating. skip eating 1 day a week and that is 30 lbs a year for an average obese man. skip 2 days/week and that is 60 lbs/year.
That said, people can make pretty rapid weight loss without eating. skip eating 1 day a week and that is 30 lbs a year for an average obese man. skip 2 days/week and that is 60 lbs/year.
> people can make pretty rapid weight loss without eating
90% of people regain weight because they go back to eating like they have a death wish.
I think conflating between mental health and eating is at the heart of the obesity epidemic. Nobody will die if they skip a few meals. They will suffer some moderate discomfort depending on how much they fixate on it.
I can go a week without eating and a few days is trivial. The longest a human has gone without food is 381 days and they lost 275 lbs
I think conflating between mental health and eating is at the heart of the obesity epidemic. Nobody will die if they skip a few meals. They will suffer some moderate discomfort depending on how much they fixate on it.
I can go a week without eating and a few days is trivial. The longest a human has gone without food is 381 days and they lost 275 lbs
Please do not assume your experience is universal. You simply cannot know how it feels for other people to be hungry, it might be a completely different feeling than what you get.
This. Exactly. It took many, many years as an adult to realise that I was blessed with incredible genes that allowed me to reduce calorie intake without many negative consequences (insane hunger cravings, etc.). My point: I didn't do anything to "earn" this -- it was granted to me by birth. It gave me extra empathy for people who don't have it, who are trying to control their weight. It is a brutal battle. I always have so much respect for people who stuggle with weight gain, but beat the demons and lose weight long term. They really are someone special!
Those numbers are assuming someone who skips a day of eating doesn’t increase their calorie consumption on other days to compensate
A lot of people assume humans are mechanistic, unfeeling CICO convertors and exclude psychological and physiological realities of losing weight. I've grown used to it. It took several tries for me to drop 50lbs and most of it was psychological and good habit formation. it took about 3 years to complete that journey.
I think the point is rather to communicate that there is no trick to around cico.
Instead, they are reinforcing that the path is clear, and the the barriers Are entirely psychological. Effort to build habits, effort to exert self control, effort to find solutions when you stumble.
If people are looking and waiting for a strategy that makes weight loss easier than inaction, they are bound for disappointment.
Some rare people find a passion that makes the process of getting healthy and fit more fun and easy than getting fatter, but that is exceedingly rare.
Instead, they are reinforcing that the path is clear, and the the barriers Are entirely psychological. Effort to build habits, effort to exert self control, effort to find solutions when you stumble.
If people are looking and waiting for a strategy that makes weight loss easier than inaction, they are bound for disappointment.
Some rare people find a passion that makes the process of getting healthy and fit more fun and easy than getting fatter, but that is exceedingly rare.
Exactly; when I fast for 24 hours, I feel a compulsion to consume every single calorie within a 3 block radius afterwards.
People who do this regularly tell me it gets a lot easier after a while.
Yep. You can't eat your way to weight loss. There there isn't any easy trick to beat the laws of physics.
Just eat less and burn more calories.
Just eat less and burn more calories.
"just" is doing a lot of work here.
And keep track of the calories in the meals they do eat to make sure they are not compensating is going to take nonzero time.
It only takes a few months to make substantial gains in c-v fitness.
This is very true. Long ago I started biking to work, and biking really hard - basically making the best time I could.
The first few weeks, at the end of a 10 minute sprint, my heart would be racing and I would be out of breath for 5 minutes after arrival.
I was amazed after 2 months of doing the same thing I wasn't out of breath, it took maybe 1 minute for my heart rate to slow back down.
The first few weeks, at the end of a 10 minute sprint, my heart would be racing and I would be out of breath for 5 minutes after arrival.
I was amazed after 2 months of doing the same thing I wasn't out of breath, it took maybe 1 minute for my heart rate to slow back down.
Define substantial. I find that incredible.
EDIT: Now that I've seen the replies, I realize that this is from a very low baseline. I'm personally going to the gym four to five days a week already and my own cardiovascular fitness has not seen much of an improvement in many months.
EDIT: Now that I've seen the replies, I realize that this is from a very low baseline. I'm personally going to the gym four to five days a week already and my own cardiovascular fitness has not seen much of an improvement in many months.
Not a source, but it tracks for me. Walk, jog, or run daily and you will have massive CV improvement from baseline in 3 months. people can and do go from being exhausted walking to their car to being capable running many miles in an incredibly short time.
The typical human body is very responsive when pushed.
The typical human body is very responsive when pushed.
The heart, lungs, and muscles get strong fast. But the bones and tendons take more time. It's best to give them time so you don't wind up with shin splints, etc.
It's the same with lifting and adding muscle mass.
If you've never lifted before and you hit the gym consistently and have the proper diet, you will get some serious "newb gains." The first year can be amazing.
But if you've lifted seriously for a decade, it's totally different. Muscle mass is very hard to add now.
Cardio gains from a coach potato introducing a serious routine will be incredible. I went from not being able to run more than 30 seconds to running a 5k in 4-5 months, and that's without pushing myself extremely hard.
If you've never lifted before and you hit the gym consistently and have the proper diet, you will get some serious "newb gains." The first year can be amazing.
But if you've lifted seriously for a decade, it's totally different. Muscle mass is very hard to add now.
Cardio gains from a coach potato introducing a serious routine will be incredible. I went from not being able to run more than 30 seconds to running a 5k in 4-5 months, and that's without pushing myself extremely hard.
I went from having not run in years to running a 5k in about 2 months. I was obese when I hit that goal, though I recently graduated to being merely overweight.
My VO2 max as reported by my Apple Watch has been making steady gains, though I'm still far below average for my age.
I didn't train hard, just consistently.
My VO2 max as reported by my Apple Watch has been making steady gains, though I'm still far below average for my age.
I didn't train hard, just consistently.
It’s true. Between myself and some close friends I have seen the following in ~6 months:
- unable to run -> run a 10k
- increase of ~50% in a all out 20 minute cycling test
- max mile time 9min->6:30min
The human body can make incredible cardiovascular leaps when starting from a relatively low point
The human body can make incredible cardiovascular leaps when starting from a relatively low point
[deleted]
One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couch_to_5K
9 weeks. I have basic fitness but have never been close to completing a 5km run (I think I finally realised I have breathing issues - seeing an ENT soon).
9 weeks. I have basic fitness but have never been close to completing a 5km run (I think I finally realised I have breathing issues - seeing an ENT soon).
n=1, but I can personally attest to going from average sedentary 29 year old to marathon running shape in roughly 3 weeks of continuous hiking 8 to 10 hours a day in the Appalachian mountains with a pack that was about 35% of my body weight.
the only way I was able to improve mine was to use interval training to get my heart rate up. It took a few months but going from a walk to sprint levels on my elliptical did wonders after a while. Observing my heart rate carefully of course.
A bit less than a year ? And also I made friends along the way.
Getting back to the baseline isn’t a bonus
It most definitely is a bonus if you aren't there now.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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
The other thing is the denominator of vo2 is weight. So losing weight without working out at all will increase vo2
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.
Well done to OP. Keep it up.
The problem with the VO2max metric is that there is no measurement of it outside of a few lab methods, certainly not in a fitness tracker, so they're estimating. It makes more sense to look at the other metrics that it CAN easily measure, like heart rate recovery to get a quantifiable and repeatable measurement. I agree for amateurs accuracy is not necessary, but repeatability is. If I weigh myself today and the scale says 10 lbs below my actual weight, and tomorrow it's 10lbs above my actual weight that's a problem. If it's always 10lbs below that's fine, the delta will be correct. You can't say that for VO2max you get out of a fitness tracker.
My watch says my VO2max is 36.8 which would put me very strongly in the long term negative health effects bucket and well below average. Meanwhile Garmin claims it's 51 which would put me in the top 15% of my age group. It can't be both. They're just made up estimations, and following them blindly could be dangerous. What if someone's is going up even though they're not actually doing a healthy amount of exercise? Or someone's is going down or maintaining even though they are, causing them to fall into negative thought or behavioral patterns? Better to stick with some other data points
My watch says my VO2max is 36.8 which would put me very strongly in the long term negative health effects bucket and well below average. Meanwhile Garmin claims it's 51 which would put me in the top 15% of my age group. It can't be both. They're just made up estimations, and following them blindly could be dangerous. What if someone's is going up even though they're not actually doing a healthy amount of exercise? Or someone's is going down or maintaining even though they are, causing them to fall into negative thought or behavioral patterns? Better to stick with some other data points
I myself did a lot of exercising during the last 1 1/2 years using an apple watch for measures and I would also go with the previous comment:
Even thought the VO2max is not accurate (especially not compared to actually lab data) it is a nice graph with a tendency which REALLY helps.
High differences might come from different estimation techniques and thus this value is not comparable among different brands but it seems to be for your own value and progress.
During a lazier time it depleted a bit, now its going up again.
Most other graphs don't show it that nice. E.g. your avg hearth rate will not make huge changes (and drop which, even if its good, doesn't feel that good).
Edit: I actually did a Lab test (not VO2max) but an exercise ecg with lactate measurements. I couldn't choose between running and cycling. The problem is: if you choose the bike they can measure the values while you continue riding. If you choose running you have to stop now and then while they take a blood sample. Even there it isn't 100% accurate and might yield different results based on the used method.
Even thought the VO2max is not accurate (especially not compared to actually lab data) it is a nice graph with a tendency which REALLY helps.
High differences might come from different estimation techniques and thus this value is not comparable among different brands but it seems to be for your own value and progress.
During a lazier time it depleted a bit, now its going up again.
Most other graphs don't show it that nice. E.g. your avg hearth rate will not make huge changes (and drop which, even if its good, doesn't feel that good).
Edit: I actually did a Lab test (not VO2max) but an exercise ecg with lactate measurements. I couldn't choose between running and cycling. The problem is: if you choose the bike they can measure the values while you continue riding. If you choose running you have to stop now and then while they take a blood sample. Even there it isn't 100% accurate and might yield different results based on the used method.
I think you just want to track both over the long term - that is compare your watch with your watch and your garmin with your garmin.
But that is a huge gap, I think in general running creates more realistic VO2max data than cycling since there are too many factors at play (e.g. if you're in a group or not or using the drop vs. not).
But that is a huge gap, I think in general running creates more realistic VO2max data than cycling since there are too many factors at play (e.g. if you're in a group or not or using the drop vs. not).
I disagree.
Weight loss doesn't automatically mean "healthier."
Using vo2 as a metric of "health" would not be correct if weight loss is the sole attribution of vo2 gain.
One can lose weight without doing a minute of exercise and vo2 would increase.
If one is interested in getting healthier, I think it's well worth the time to learn about how the metrics work.
Weight loss doesn't automatically mean "healthier."
Using vo2 as a metric of "health" would not be correct if weight loss is the sole attribution of vo2 gain.
One can lose weight without doing a minute of exercise and vo2 would increase.
If one is interested in getting healthier, I think it's well worth the time to learn about how the metrics work.
My point is that for most adults in the world right now (western, industrialized, developing, modern, whatever) there is an obesity epidemic and any amount of focused self-care through exercise and diet will improve health outcomes. Eat less, exercise more. If an arbitrary metric on fitness tracker helps you reach that goal, then just do it.
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.
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.
> In the real world, this number actually tracks pretty linearly with how much faster I'm able to climb a hill on a bike.
That's because both of those things are directly related to weight.
(VO2 max is usually given in a weight-normalized unit. So losing weight will make it go up as long as you at least maintain your fitness).
That's because both of those things are directly related to weight.
(VO2 max is usually given in a weight-normalized unit. So losing weight will make it go up as long as you at least maintain your fitness).
40 to 57 is a huge increase in a year - kudos!
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.
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.
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.
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.
80% or more of it is spent at Zone 2/Endurance where I try to keep my heart rate below 145.
That’s pro level work volume. Congrats!
2 hours a day is a ridiculous amount
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.
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?
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?
I definitely waste more time during the day than that lol.
Happiest and most productive Ive been was when I was skating, riding a bike, dancing etc for hours every day.
Happiest and most productive Ive been was when I was skating, riding a bike, dancing etc for hours every day.
> Why is two hours ridiculous?
Even if Vo2 is inaccurate on Apple watch , relative increase in your Vo2 is a positive metric. Kudos to you.
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?
that’s an amazing change. Could you elaborate on your training regimen?
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.
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.
Congrats. You’re an inspiration to me. :)
I love these kinds of posts. They are ridiculous.
First:
First:
> Fortunately, this seems relatively simple to change
> the extra energy I gained from 90-120 minutes of aerobics per day
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.
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.
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.
With 30km bike commute you can scroll the web as much as before.
They did say "simple", not "easy"...
Yeah, I think the usgov-recommended guidelines of 150min/week (plus two strength training sessions) is a decent starting point thought.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
So I suppose the message needs to be: Both are important.
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. :)
My regrets is that I didn't utilize cardio earlier. I would have achieved my lifting goals much earlier if I had.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
The Barbell Medicine podcast has a three-part series on cardio you should check out.
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).
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.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
Also how is this related to depression, you said “this is the same problem” after you mentioned depression.
The parallel intended was that if you propose a solution that is technically a fix but not feasible for some reason beyond preference, it's not going to help.
CPAP machines are often prescribed for people who are not necessarily at acute risk of death so much as having no consistent high quality sleep, which has a lot of complicated possible knock-on effects. Unfortunately, since it takes a long time sometimes to notice positive effects, while they're uncomfortable to use from the start (among other reasons), it becomes difficult to convince people to keep using them for unseen benefits. (To my understanding, yes, insurance will just stop paying for it if you don't hit some threshold of usage. I've not had insurance that did that, but I have personally known multiple people who had to avoid certain activities because they would have been away from electricity for too long.)
Similarly, if you suggest exercise, an activity that requires a significant investment of mental effort for many people to engage in absent habit, as a sole treatment for a condition where people sometimes cannot manage to invest enough effort to eat, an activity which many people enjoy doing, it will not be constructive.
(I'm not arguing against either as part of a larger treatment plan, but if you don't consider the reasons that people might not have done them beyond "I didn't know it was an option", then you will often end up giving advice that is technically correct but not usefully actionable.)
CPAP machines are often prescribed for people who are not necessarily at acute risk of death so much as having no consistent high quality sleep, which has a lot of complicated possible knock-on effects. Unfortunately, since it takes a long time sometimes to notice positive effects, while they're uncomfortable to use from the start (among other reasons), it becomes difficult to convince people to keep using them for unseen benefits. (To my understanding, yes, insurance will just stop paying for it if you don't hit some threshold of usage. I've not had insurance that did that, but I have personally known multiple people who had to avoid certain activities because they would have been away from electricity for too long.)
Similarly, if you suggest exercise, an activity that requires a significant investment of mental effort for many people to engage in absent habit, as a sole treatment for a condition where people sometimes cannot manage to invest enough effort to eat, an activity which many people enjoy doing, it will not be constructive.
(I'm not arguing against either as part of a larger treatment plan, but if you don't consider the reasons that people might not have done them beyond "I didn't know it was an option", then you will often end up giving advice that is technically correct but not usefully actionable.)
Chronic sleep disruptions that are treatable with CPAP machines are also strongly correlated with depression. Improving the effectiveness of sleep is a contributing factor to positive mental state.
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.
I started jogging a month or so ago and have definitely seen an improvement in my mental health.
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.
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.
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.
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)
(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)
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.
It feels a bit like the US approach to pain management – instead of massages or physical therapy, some opioid pill is cheaper to prescribe.
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.
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.
I'm speaking from experience regarding mental illnesses and exercise. And I never discounted medication.
Just that exercise is critically underprescribed, I'm fairly sure it would work better for milder cases compared to meds. Not to mention the other health benefits listed in the thread.
Same way an opioid pill is still prescribed in cases of cancer or severe pain. Just that there are probably better, milder alternatives that don't have as many side effects that could fit a lot of these people with milder problems.
Same way an opioid pill is still prescribed in cases of cancer or severe pain. Just that there are probably better, milder alternatives that don't have as many side effects that could fit a lot of these people with milder problems.
I am 90% on your side (my experience is just that most doctors or therapists ask for my workout before considering meds). The truth is just that every mental illness is different.
So yeah, my takeaway is we should embrace workout, or maybe not necesserily straight workout, but just simple movement/exercise, more than meds. Especially here in germany I notice a very bad/prejudice mindset about doctors. I myself had very good experience. Either just because of pure luck or because I went to them, because I geniuenely believe that they are professionals who can help me. And that's what they (most of the time, not always) did.
So yeah, my takeaway is we should embrace workout, or maybe not necesserily straight workout, but just simple movement/exercise, more than meds. Especially here in germany I notice a very bad/prejudice mindset about doctors. I myself had very good experience. Either just because of pure luck or because I went to them, because I geniuenely believe that they are professionals who can help me. And that's what they (most of the time, not always) did.
I'm not saying that workouts will necessarily fix your social anxiety or any other mental disorder, but I don't know of anything else that necessarily will - meds and psychotherapy are also quite limited in their effectiveness.
All I'm saying is people should at least consider that exercise (and more specifically - mild to rigorous cardio workouts) can be just as effective as psychotherapy / meds are. The evidence is there.
I don't expect this understanding to come from therapists, this needs to come from society at large.
Also, it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive, you can do both.
> my social anxiety
Have you tried pineapple on your pizza? Seems like an interesting experiment
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.
Exercise does nothing for severe depression.
My depression is severe and exercise does make a difference. I’m not sure why you’d think that.
It doesn’t make the bad thoughts go away. It doesn’t turn off the bad feelings. I’d still be diagnosed with severe depression if I went in with a fresh slate. What it does is give me the energy to endure it, though. The physiological symptoms subside quite a bit, and it makes a meaningful difference.
It also helps more than medication since I seem to be a non-responder. It’s a big help in my life.
It doesn’t make the bad thoughts go away. It doesn’t turn off the bad feelings. I’d still be diagnosed with severe depression if I went in with a fresh slate. What it does is give me the energy to endure it, though. The physiological symptoms subside quite a bit, and it makes a meaningful difference.
It also helps more than medication since I seem to be a non-responder. It’s a big help in my life.
Agreed, but mild to moderate depression is the majority of people with mental health issues - that's where we should start.
Also , I suspect it will also help a lot in severe depression but its hard to get someone with severe depression to exercise - in that case meds should be the way to go.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Maybe you're one of the people that for whatever reason exercise does nothing to - though I highly doubt it. I'm not sure what training you do exactly but to reap most of the benefits the workout should include moderate cardio work. I don't think going to lift weights for a 40-60 minutes with plenty of rest between sets will cut it. Running for 45+ minutes is what most people should aim for, of course beginners will do less.
Anyway I agree with you - for most folks the connection doesn't exist, perhaps its time this changed.
Maybe you're one of the people that for whatever reason exercise does nothing to - though I highly doubt it. I'm not sure what training you do exactly but to reap most of the benefits the workout should include moderate cardio work. I don't think going to lift weights for a 40-60 minutes with plenty of rest between sets will cut it. Running for 45+ minutes is what most people should aim for, of course beginners will do less.
Anyway I agree with you - for most folks the connection doesn't exist, perhaps its time this changed.
Hmm, I've never felt any "noticeable" positive effect of exercise either.
I didn't exercise basically at all for well over decade. But I felt fine, wasn't overweight or gaining weight or anything like that.
But I decided that I should probably exercise, so have been for awhile now. Fortunately I have what appears to be a very high amount of self control so I'm able to just force myself to go exercise even though I hate every second of it and it just feels like a waste of time.
I haven't noticed any changes to anything that I can think of since going from no exercise to 3-4 days a week of about 1 hour sessions of zone 2+ exercise.
I just keep waiting for this magical benefit that some people talk about, but I get nothing.
I'm only doing it because if I don't, supposedly "bad things" will happen to my body in the future.
I didn't exercise basically at all for well over decade. But I felt fine, wasn't overweight or gaining weight or anything like that.
But I decided that I should probably exercise, so have been for awhile now. Fortunately I have what appears to be a very high amount of self control so I'm able to just force myself to go exercise even though I hate every second of it and it just feels like a waste of time.
I haven't noticed any changes to anything that I can think of since going from no exercise to 3-4 days a week of about 1 hour sessions of zone 2+ exercise.
I just keep waiting for this magical benefit that some people talk about, but I get nothing.
I'm only doing it because if I don't, supposedly "bad things" will happen to my body in the future.
Interesting. What kind of exercise do you do? and how do you define Zone 2 (there are many contradicting definitions out there)?
I would try going a bit to zone 3/4 at times (of course while being careful not to injure yourself) not only to get the 'noticeable' positive effect, but also because it seems like you get bored/frustrated a lot in your workouts and it doesn't have to be that boring.
Anyway keep at it, I hope you will enjoy it more and get that nice feelings everyone is talking about. Try noticing if your sleep is a bit deeper and better after hard sessions, how your energy levels are etc. For most people there will be improvement in those areas (you could be an outlier but I kinda doubt it).
Also - don't take it the wrong way but it's going to be very hard for you to notice anything positive about the whole thing if you're convinced you hate every minute of it. I'm not sure how you can get out of this mindset but I think it's important that you do. Or try different kinds of exercise that you don't hate.
Also - don't take it the wrong way but it's going to be very hard for you to notice anything positive about the whole thing if you're convinced you hate every minute of it. I'm not sure how you can get out of this mindset but I think it's important that you do. Or try different kinds of exercise that you don't hate.
Well aside from weight lifting I mostly use the stair machine because I feel that it best matches the activity that I do like to do sometimes (hiking).
I was defining zone 2 mainly by how it feels. Not too hard and where I can breathe fairly normally and easily have a conversation. But also by the heartrate being in the 65-75% range, so for age 36 I was keeping it around 125-130. My resting heart rate is 52 but not sure if that matters. It's always been that even when I was more than a decade of sedentary.
Another reason I was doing all zone 2 is because I thought that I had some sort of aerobic deficiency syndrome thing from being sedentary for so long. Basically my heart rate would shoot up into zone 3 with pretty minimal exercise, and I read that the only way to fix this was to do lots and lots of long zone 2 exercise for months.
I'm sure if I did more fun things it would be easier to be enthusiastic about it, but I am not even sure what active activity I would like. Sure I like hiking, but that's something I like to do on a trip somewhere exotic like a state or national park, not something I can easily do regularly locally.
My energy levels honestly feel somewhat more depleted when I am working out. Like I just want to take a nap after a workout and I feel like nodding off. Not like instantly, but maybe like an hour after or so.
I just haven't been able to understand or feel the connection people find with exercise. Like I said, I never felt any issue or lacking in my energy levels or mood, or sleep or focus when I was more or less completely sedentary, and I always watched what I ate so I was healthy in that regard (perfect scores on biometric blood tests), normal weight, etc.
So exercise just feels like a time waster, just an uncomfortable time sweating etc and overall possibly a little more tired and drained because of it.
My only motivation for keeping doing it is the prospect that it will help prevent some sort of future complications and health issues, and I guess that's good enough for me to convince myself to keep going.
Hating it is maybe too strong of a word, but I definitely don't look forward to it in any way and I just want to get it over with for the day so I can move onto something that I actually enjoy. It just feels like a chore. Something that we need to do to live a good life, so we do it.
I was defining zone 2 mainly by how it feels. Not too hard and where I can breathe fairly normally and easily have a conversation. But also by the heartrate being in the 65-75% range, so for age 36 I was keeping it around 125-130. My resting heart rate is 52 but not sure if that matters. It's always been that even when I was more than a decade of sedentary.
Another reason I was doing all zone 2 is because I thought that I had some sort of aerobic deficiency syndrome thing from being sedentary for so long. Basically my heart rate would shoot up into zone 3 with pretty minimal exercise, and I read that the only way to fix this was to do lots and lots of long zone 2 exercise for months.
I'm sure if I did more fun things it would be easier to be enthusiastic about it, but I am not even sure what active activity I would like. Sure I like hiking, but that's something I like to do on a trip somewhere exotic like a state or national park, not something I can easily do regularly locally.
My energy levels honestly feel somewhat more depleted when I am working out. Like I just want to take a nap after a workout and I feel like nodding off. Not like instantly, but maybe like an hour after or so.
I just haven't been able to understand or feel the connection people find with exercise. Like I said, I never felt any issue or lacking in my energy levels or mood, or sleep or focus when I was more or less completely sedentary, and I always watched what I ate so I was healthy in that regard (perfect scores on biometric blood tests), normal weight, etc.
So exercise just feels like a time waster, just an uncomfortable time sweating etc and overall possibly a little more tired and drained because of it.
My only motivation for keeping doing it is the prospect that it will help prevent some sort of future complications and health issues, and I guess that's good enough for me to convince myself to keep going.
Hating it is maybe too strong of a word, but I definitely don't look forward to it in any way and I just want to get it over with for the day so I can move onto something that I actually enjoy. It just feels like a chore. Something that we need to do to live a good life, so we do it.
Its possible your max HR is way above your age (the 220 - age thing is really inaccurate). You can buy a chest strap / get properly tested to find out.
I would try to make at least some of the workouts a bit more challenging - you can try pick up running. Or if you're working the stairs machine, do it faster and for longer for at least part of the time. This will not only make it more interesting for you - its also the only way to improve your vO2 max if all you're doing is 3 workouts a week (and a higher v02 max should be your goal is you're thinking about longevity / health).
As for energy levels - I meant in general. After hard workouts I can be quite exhausted for 24 hours sometimes. That's normal. But my sleep is usually higher quality and the day after I'm a bit more vital. My mood is more stabilized etc.
Anyway good luck! I hope you'll take away from this that its OK to change /mix things up and see what works for you.
Anyway good luck! I hope you'll take away from this that its OK to change /mix things up and see what works for you.
I did always kind of wonder if i'm even using the right heart rate zones. But it's not like I am trying to train for any specific purpose. Just to be healthy, so I doubt I need to go to the level of doing a lab test to find that out.
I can definitely just increase the intensity.
Overall I don't feel like I have ever been in touch with my body or mood or things like that.
Like I don't know how I would judge how well I slept on a given night. I don't normally wake up in the middle of the night or anything like that. I don't really feel I can gauge my sleep quality by how I feel when I wake up because when I wake up for work on a weekday I am always tired. I just assume that's because I am not a morning person, and I only feel rested and good if I wake up more like around 10-11am on a day that I don't have to be up earlier.
As for mood, I rarely feel like I am in tune with that much either. Maybe it's a learned skill and I just never took the time to develop it or something. I feel more or less the same the vast majority of the time and that's about how well I can put it. If my mood is changing, it's not something I normally "notice" on its own I guess.
It's always a struggle for me to decide what exactly to do, because I feel like when looking up that information all you find is that it's all contradictory in some way the more you keep reading into it.
I can definitely just increase the intensity.
Overall I don't feel like I have ever been in touch with my body or mood or things like that.
Like I don't know how I would judge how well I slept on a given night. I don't normally wake up in the middle of the night or anything like that. I don't really feel I can gauge my sleep quality by how I feel when I wake up because when I wake up for work on a weekday I am always tired. I just assume that's because I am not a morning person, and I only feel rested and good if I wake up more like around 10-11am on a day that I don't have to be up earlier.
As for mood, I rarely feel like I am in tune with that much either. Maybe it's a learned skill and I just never took the time to develop it or something. I feel more or less the same the vast majority of the time and that's about how well I can put it. If my mood is changing, it's not something I normally "notice" on its own I guess.
It's always a struggle for me to decide what exactly to do, because I feel like when looking up that information all you find is that it's all contradictory in some way the more you keep reading into it.
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.
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.
is it not? I thought the suggestion "have you tried exercising" to depressed people had reached meme status based on its frequency
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.
It does. It's just that, as you've noticed, even those people giving the advice aren't exercising "enough" for you either because it's not as easy or rewarding as you think it is. Just saying "you should do more exercise" is completely useless because people tune it out like an advertising slogan they've heard 5,000 times before.
> because it's not as easy or rewarding as you think it is.
Neither is therapy or taking chemicals. Yet we whole heartedly push it on people. Is it easy to go to a complete stranger and start talking about your most intimate childhood issues? Sometimes for years on? That is if you're lucky enough to find a therapist you actually click with and who knows what he/she is doing which is far from guaranteed (and that is if you can even afford the whole thing). I don't think it is easy or rewarding at all, to me running sounds easier. But as a society we just became conditioned to operate in our current bizarre ways - it doesn't mean its easy or sensible it just is.
> Just saying "you should do more exercise" is completely useless
Since the vast majority don't see exercise as a viable mental health therapy (as far as I know) it is indeed a bit useless to say it. If it was taken more seriously by the mental health community and society in general - then people would take it more seriously. By taking it seriously I mean a whole societal change. I see no reason why exercise shouldn't be subsidized just like other therapies sometimes are. Yes you will get a subsidy for a personal trainer who will work with you because you need it for your mental health - why isn't this happening at all?
Neither is therapy or taking chemicals. Yet we whole heartedly push it on people. Is it easy to go to a complete stranger and start talking about your most intimate childhood issues? Sometimes for years on? That is if you're lucky enough to find a therapist you actually click with and who knows what he/she is doing which is far from guaranteed (and that is if you can even afford the whole thing). I don't think it is easy or rewarding at all, to me running sounds easier. But as a society we just became conditioned to operate in our current bizarre ways - it doesn't mean its easy or sensible it just is.
> Just saying "you should do more exercise" is completely useless
Since the vast majority don't see exercise as a viable mental health therapy (as far as I know) it is indeed a bit useless to say it. If it was taken more seriously by the mental health community and society in general - then people would take it more seriously. By taking it seriously I mean a whole societal change. I see no reason why exercise shouldn't be subsidized just like other therapies sometimes are. Yes you will get a subsidy for a personal trainer who will work with you because you need it for your mental health - why isn't this happening at all?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_equivalent_of_task
> 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 2200 MET-minutes/week is about 3 hours of 8mph running per week
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.
That's only 24 miles per week of running.
Most people could probably get to that level of fitness within a year.
Luckily, very few people are in danger of extreme fitness. That is what the word extreme means.
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.
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?
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?
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
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
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.
There are major differences between individuals in terms of training response and achievable upper limit.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Series 5 does it post every Cardio exercise
According to Apple[0] it is only after the specific activities of: Outdoor Walk, Outdoor Run, and Hiking. Which explains why my estimated VO2 max goes down significantly in the winter months when I'm mainly doing cardio indoors and only taking leisurely walks with the dog outdoors.
[0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/108790#:~:text=Apple%20Watch....
[0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/108790#:~:text=Apple%20Watch....
I wonder why they can’t track cardio indoors. Perhaps because the watch doesn’t link up to most / any treadmills and is generally totally inaccurate with respect to distance and speed?
[deleted]
it's just the V02 max estimate which is only validated for those scenarios
That's correct, distance plays a role in the estimate somehow so they limit it to when they can verify via GPS. They don't seem confidant on their distance relative to running on a treadmill. I find my watch is pretty close to the treadmill readout most of the time except when I start getting tired and holding onto the handles, then it begins to diverge.
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_...
https://old.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/m5q7yx/cardio_f...
https://old.reddit.com/r/AppleWatch/comments/yte3zd/the_vo2_...
Cardio still counts even if you don't measure it and share it with Apple.
I think that Apple end-to-end encrypts fitness data.
Does Apple get your cardio data? It's my understanding is that is encrypted, even when it goes to iCloud for backup.
Come on now. If it's not on Strava then it didn't happen.
Strava is not enough. You should make a tiktok livestream while exercising. Otherwise it's not a real workout
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.
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.
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?
> looking at VO2 max in relation to all-cause mortality, we see a very clear trend. Simply bringing your VO2 max from ‘low’ (bottom 25th percentile) to ‘below average’ (25th to 50th percentile) is associated with a 50% reduction in all-cause mortality. When you go from ‘low’ to ‘above average’ (50th to 75th percentile) the risk reduction is closer to 70%!
https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/vo2-max/
https://peterattiamd.com/category/exercise/vo2-max/
But isn't it one of those things where someone with a higher VO2 is likely doing healthy things that they have lower risk. Rather than a lower risk simply because their VO2 is higher.
Unless you're getting it tested in a lab, the number is not very accurate. Genetics also plays a large part in how much you can raise it.
For most casual people it's just a single data point that seems all encompassing so they go:
number goes up = good.
Most professional athletes don't really care about vo2 max all that much.
For most casual people it's just a single data point that seems all encompassing so they go:
number goes up = good.
Most professional athletes don't really care about vo2 max all that much.
To me it's a measurement of roughly how not-dead I am
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.
You can create a shortcut that prompts you for text input, then appends the current datetime, and saves it to the health metric of your choice. You then export this to your home screen.
So when you get good data for your VO2Max (or anything else, really), you can easily save it and look at it on the Apple Health graphs.
The only way to get the Watch to stop messing it up with its daily hallucinated number is to turn off all fitness tracking (in the Privacy settings of all places).
But then half the reason for having the watch goes away.
So when you get good data for your VO2Max (or anything else, really), you can easily save it and look at it on the Apple Health graphs.
The only way to get the Watch to stop messing it up with its daily hallucinated number is to turn off all fitness tracking (in the Privacy settings of all places).
But then half the reason for having the watch goes away.
How often do you do metabolic stress tests?
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.
The trends aren’t really useful either unless you are recording strenuous exercise with the watch. I do a lot of cycling and my fitness in terms of how much power I can put out and for how long and my average heart rate for the same power has increased vastly, yet according to Apple my VO2 max has stayed consistent at around 45 for years since I only record walking exercises with it. I guess there’s not much it can tell if you only hit the mid 80s bpm at most during an exercise.
I realise it’s also another estimate but based on my cycling exercises Garmin is estimating my VO2 max at 55 and it does show a progression in my values.
I realise it’s also another estimate but based on my cycling exercises Garmin is estimating my VO2 max at 55 and it does show a progression in my values.
The trends are garbage too. According to my watch my VO2Max has swung wildly between 55 and 45 over the last year, while every other measurement points to my fitness staying mostly steady.
Mine swings around as well, and I attribute it to the fact that Apple only uses Outdoor Walk, Outdoor Run, and Hiking to estimate VO2Max. Mine trends down in the winter months when most of my intense cardio is happening indoors on the treadmill or elliptical machine, and most of my outdoor activities are leisurely walks with the dog in poor conditions.
Tracks with my numbers. I oscillate between 48 and 36, but my fitness is the same, I am just doing different activities.
I find that my scores are mostly determined by how well I sleep the night before I do the workout.
Where do you get a VO2Max test?
I just googled around and there were plenty of testing facility options in my metro area (Boston). Cost was reasonable too, typically less than <$100.
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!
I love my Garmin Fenix 6 pro.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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
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
Your indicators will be different, but your actual O2 uptake should be essentially similar. Any difference should be due to technique (if you've optimized your breathing/rhythm/etc for one but not the other).
This is incorrect. VO2max is influenced mostly by muscle recruitment - different muscle group trained would be a hindrance if anything
"VO2max is influenced mostly by muscle recruitment"
This is incorrect - the primary factor is heart and lung function. Yes, muscle training can play a factor, but is relatively minor compared to that.
This is incorrect - the primary factor is heart and lung function. Yes, muscle training can play a factor, but is relatively minor compared to that.
Lung capacity is genetic and heart is only trainable up to a small limit bc there’s a layer of fascia around it preventing further expansion. That’s the “supply” side of vo2. The “demand” side is the recruitment and efficiencies you’ve developed which are exercise dependent. This is
why you dont see a lot of cross training (except for recovery) and a lot of z4 work in the professional training programs
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.
It transfers to an extent. Lance Armstrong marathon PR is 3 hours from what I read, which is a great result for an amateur runner but totally unimpressive for a professional endurance athlete, let alone one of the best in history. I was actually a bit surprised that's the fastest Lance could do and to me it shows it doesn't cross over that well.
Not surprising at all. Vo2 in general is not great metric for elites and specificity is king. Which is why you rarely ever see elites cross train much
I wonder if running crosses better to cycling than vice versa, I think it might cross a bit better because running involves more (pretty much all) muscle groups. On the other hand there might be a lot of technique in cycling that takes a while to learn so idk.
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.
There's famous studies about people testing VO2 max with one leg trained exercises,then looking at VO2 max with non-trained leg.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1976...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1976...
It's true in the sense that you'll be better optimized towards the activities you train in most intensely in regularly, but you do develop transferable gains as well. It's just not 100% transferable.
I think the GP's comment is just easy to misread.
I think the GP's comment is just easy to misread.
But do you really need a botnet on your arm to get motivated to do sports once a week? Weird society
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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").
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.
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.
I use a single printed sheet for each week. I carry last week plus this week. That helps me to update the current sheet based on last week. Then each week, I throw away the old sheet. It's enough for me. As long as I am progressing week over week, that is enough. Are you aware of meso-cycles? Basically: 4-8 weeks on, then one week at half weight, half reps, or full rest. You can really build a lot more muscle using meso-cycles.
I like that idea. It works with my weekly planner well. And mesocycles sound interesting - also easy to track in my planner. I'll give it a try!
You should add some diversity in your activities and you will perhaps identify some that you enjoy more at a given time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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!
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.
Start slow, 5 minutes, breathe, go slow, and enjoy the beautiful weather here this time of year.
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!
You just described exactly what happened in some communist countries. This was what happened in USSR, and in China decades 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! ...'"
'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! ...'"
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.
> 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.
Sheesh, fine. I'll start jogging
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
"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"
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.
> 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.
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.
Waist-to-hip ratio is as accurate as dexascans and VO2Max measurements done in a lab.
People don't want to hear it because they are out of shape.
People don't want to hear it because they are out of shape.
Wait-to-hip ratio is an accurate measurement of cardio-respiratory capacity ?
Morbidity and mortality, which is what the article's title is about.
Waist-to-hip ratio takes more time to change than VO2Max, it can even negatively change as a subject exercices more (e.g. they put more muscle than lose fat)
Waist-to-hip is a good predictor for generic subjects who otherwise never cared about improving their health. If the goal is to actually improve health, that assumption stops being true and you can't rely on generic heuristics anymore.
Waist-to-hip is a good predictor for generic subjects who otherwise never cared about improving their health. If the goal is to actually improve health, that assumption stops being true and you can't rely on generic heuristics anymore.
The article is about how morbidity and mortality relate to cardiovascular fitness. The fact that waist to hip ratio also is related to morbidity and mortality is a bit irrelevant in that specific context. One can imagine a person who vigorously rows every morning for 45 minutes and has a high cardiovascular fitness, but who also has a very poor diet and is thus fat.
One can imagine many a thing which doesn't exist.
One should stick to the facts however.
One should stick to the facts however.
"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.
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.
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.
At the very least, good medical care provides information. What the individual does with it is up to them.
I get it. But you can get similar data from the old-fashioned way of measuring circumferences, weight, height, pinch test, etc to get body fat percentages, or the VO2 max approximation tests. The other thing to point out, is the only people getting/doing any of these tests are already motivated enough to give a damn.
Yes, medical care should provide information. There are lower tech and cheaper ways to provide actionable information. But like you said, it's up to the individual. Either the will is there or it isn't. If someone knows they would benefit from the visual representation of a scan, they can ask for one. Technically DEXA carries some risk with x-ray exposure if done on a recurring basis.
Yes, medical care should provide information. There are lower tech and cheaper ways to provide actionable information. But like you said, it's up to the individual. Either the will is there or it isn't. If someone knows they would benefit from the visual representation of a scan, they can ask for one. Technically DEXA carries some risk with x-ray exposure if done on a recurring basis.
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".
"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".
What's the advantage of a VO2max test compared to e.g. measuring speed or power in your (standardized) intervals?
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.
Most people have these at home and fail to take meaningful action based on the results.
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.
[deleted]
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
Pretty sure Dexa scans and VO2Max tests are HSA/FSA eligible.
What about it? It’s still coming out of my pocket, albeit untaxed.
I was just trying to save people some money.
DEXA cost <$200 most places (I think closer to $100)
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
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
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).
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.
My favorite exercise in this regard is Swimming and Kettlebell training.
Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement for Swinning and Kettlebell training.
It turns out having the intelligence to not listen to JRs advice on most things will likely increase your life expectancy.
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.
Go to people who know what they're talking about like the Barbell Medicine podcast for evidence-based fitness recommendations.
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.
Yup, for all the risks that people focus on (microplastics, pesticide residues, etc), they don't do the easiest thing to ensure health - exercise.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Damn bro you’re going beast mode. Keep it up. That’s awesome.
[deleted]
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.
So the sicker you are the less in shape you are in? Seems obvious to me.
The less in shape you are, the sicker you can possibly get.
That seems counter intuitive I’d expect that, if you are in very good shape you can get more sick before dying.
Probably a continuum of causal arrows pointing either one way or the other, in the group.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For most adults, a resting heart rate above about 60 bpm is a sign of serious underlying pathology. Doctors usually won't recommend medical treatment unless resting heart rate exceeds 100 bpm, but over time there is a significantly increased risk of premature death.
> For most adults, a resting heart rate above about 60 bpm is a sign of serious underlying pathology.
Sources? The claim I most recently heard is that 60-80 bpm is within normal range (which itself surprised me, because I've usually been told a target of 60 bpm resting heartrate, leaving aside the 40 bpm achievable by some athletes).
Sources? The claim I most recently heard is that 60-80 bpm is within normal range (which itself surprised me, because I've usually been told a target of 60 bpm resting heartrate, leaving aside the 40 bpm achievable by some athletes).
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.
The study itself can’t address the direction of causality because it is observational.
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?
Weird though since you can get your resting heart rate much lower by exercising.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
If you have a power meter (e.g. assault bike) just measure with what power you can do the Norwegian 4x4 protocol.
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.
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
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
Shouldn't the title be "Weak cardio fitness is a strong, consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality"?
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.
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.
Exercise does have some positive contribution to inflammatory response. Chronic pain is a pretty big bucket, though.
Causality is likely bidirectional here.
Because you couldn’t say “in mice” :-)
Are there cheap fitness bands or smart watches that can somewhat accurately track VO2 max?
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.
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.
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.
Source?
Doug McGuff, "Body by Science". Downvotes to my very helpful and lifesaving original comment is by losers who will run till they die.
You’re getting downvoted because of name calling, not because you have a different view.
“Losers who will run till they die”
“Bunch of amateurs”
That level of inflammatory discourse ain’t welcome here.
“Losers who will run till they die”
“Bunch of amateurs”
That level of inflammatory discourse ain’t welcome here.
truth is bitter, but it's good medicine.
This level of stupidity ain't welcome to my brain either.
This seems completely unsurprising.
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?
Which is better for establishing cardio fitness? Short and hard vs longer and moderate?
Cardio is aerobic exercise. If you have to ask, you’re not a world class athlete and the answer is longer and moderate.
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.
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.
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.
You have no idea what his pre-existing medical conditions were.
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.
How old was he?
We doubled our lifespan from 32 to 75 from 1900 to now. In a 100 years, we changed the game.
Once we pass 50, there is a lot of complex machinery at play including genetics, past history, diet, drinking, smoking e.t.c. to cause death.
We doubled our lifespan from 32 to 75 from 1900 to now. In a 100 years, we changed the game.
Once we pass 50, there is a lot of complex machinery at play including genetics, past history, diet, drinking, smoking e.t.c. to cause death.
In his late 30s. If he was, say, in his 50s or 60s this wouldn't have weirded me out as much. Could have been an anatomical defect or something like that, not caught by the regular checkups? Who knows...
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
Consider he was in his late 30s, which makes this even more absurd. For all I know, as you suggest, he could've also collapsed from doing heavy house chores or renovation, and it's something I've been careful not to overdo as well for that same fear.
*prospect of dying
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.