Rethinking Exercise: How Too Much Can Speed Up Aging, According to Finnish Study (2023)(thomashealthblog.com)
thomashealthblog.com
Rethinking Exercise: How Too Much Can Speed Up Aging, According to Finnish Study (2023)
https://www.thomashealthblog.com/?p=19078
54 comments
Yes, this is very odd. Exercise is healthy because it lowers blood pressure and BMI. They compensate for blood pressure and BMI, and lo and behold, no health effects are left..
To be fair, with exercise injuries are way more common than without.
But also those moderate "aches" go away with exercise
But also those moderate "aches" go away with exercise
The study appears to be misrepresented. From the paper at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10274991/
"Although biological ageing was accelerated in sedentary and highly active classes, after adjusting for other lifestyle-related factors, the associations mainly attenuated."
"Conclusion: Being active may reflect a healthy phenotype instead of causally reducing mortality."
Therefore, the paper isn't supporting the article claim that too much exercise is speeding up aging, rather, that this is dominated by genetics.
"Although biological ageing was accelerated in sedentary and highly active classes, after adjusting for other lifestyle-related factors, the associations mainly attenuated."
"Conclusion: Being active may reflect a healthy phenotype instead of causally reducing mortality."
Therefore, the paper isn't supporting the article claim that too much exercise is speeding up aging, rather, that this is dominated by genetics.
So is it like if a man is physically active but works blue collar low paid job with a lot of physical activity and lives alone and has no degree and probably drinks/smokes lots etc then it is correlated with quicker aging? No shit.
Why even report non adjusted stats then? They just wanted sensational press buzz? Or maybe these stats are still significant?
Why even report non adjusted stats then? They just wanted sensational press buzz? Or maybe these stats are still significant?
> mainly attenuated
> may reflect
So the study acknowledges that this is all not yet settled. The (potentially damaging) effect of excessive exercise may be stronger what the study found, or it may be neutral (i.e., not actually extending lifespan, but not damaging it either)
It remains to be seen what further studies reveal, but for now the blog is not far off in speculating a potentially damaging effect.
> may reflect
So the study acknowledges that this is all not yet settled. The (potentially damaging) effect of excessive exercise may be stronger what the study found, or it may be neutral (i.e., not actually extending lifespan, but not damaging it either)
It remains to be seen what further studies reveal, but for now the blog is not far off in speculating a potentially damaging effect.
> "Conclusion: Being active may reflect a healthy phenotype instead of causally reducing mortality." Therefore, the paper isn't supporting the article claim that too much exercise is speeding up aging...
The article claim as of when I clicked through:
“This outcome suggests that the longevity associated with physically active individuals could stem more from their overall healthier lifestyles rather than the exercise itself.”
So my takeaway from the article was it's less about the exercise, more about overall health, and, moderation rather than long tail. That seems consistent.
> rather, that this is dominated by genetics.
On the contrary, not sure that's what the paper says, as that implies the exclusion of overall health lifestyle.
Note that phenotype can mean observable characteristics or traits, rather than strictly/solely genetic traits. The usage is common to mean something like "overall health profile".
The paper describes aim to remove paired environments and paired genetics. Diagrams depict control for "familial factors" described as covering "environmental" and "genetics", aiming to remove these from the comparison.
The article claim as of when I clicked through:
“This outcome suggests that the longevity associated with physically active individuals could stem more from their overall healthier lifestyles rather than the exercise itself.”
So my takeaway from the article was it's less about the exercise, more about overall health, and, moderation rather than long tail. That seems consistent.
> rather, that this is dominated by genetics.
On the contrary, not sure that's what the paper says, as that implies the exclusion of overall health lifestyle.
Note that phenotype can mean observable characteristics or traits, rather than strictly/solely genetic traits. The usage is common to mean something like "overall health profile".
The paper describes aim to remove paired environments and paired genetics. Diagrams depict control for "familial factors" described as covering "environmental" and "genetics", aiming to remove these from the comparison.
The actual study is here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10274991/
Thank you!
> Being active may reflect a healthy phenotype instead of causally reducing mortality.
So the people that are healthier do more exercises and also die older but not causally
> Being active may reflect a healthy phenotype instead of causally reducing mortality.
So the people that are healthier do more exercises and also die older but not causally
> Their findings, which earned a prestigious sports medicine award in Finland, suggest that excessive physical activity might not only be less beneficial for extending lifespan but could also potentially accelerate aging.
The key word is: excessive.
Furthmore, exercise isn't only about quantity (i.e., lifespan), it's about quality (i.e., avoiding health issue compromise quality of life).
Given the choice, running an extra mile is likely a wiser default than drinking an extra Coke.
The key word is: excessive.
Furthmore, exercise isn't only about quantity (i.e., lifespan), it's about quality (i.e., avoiding health issue compromise quality of life).
Given the choice, running an extra mile is likely a wiser default than drinking an extra Coke.
People need to think of exercise as more for mental/cardio health and muscular system maintenance.. while weight management being 99% controlled by diet.
The incremental exercise to burn off last nights dessert is a LOT, and probably easier to just have dessert a bit less often.
The incremental exercise to burn off last nights dessert is a LOT, and probably easier to just have dessert a bit less often.
Agreed.
To your point, food is for nourishment, not to trigger daily oral orgasms. It's ok if most meals are good for you and only tastes just ok.
Eat to live, not as a proxy to feel alive.
To your point, food is for nourishment, not to trigger daily oral orgasms. It's ok if most meals are good for you and only tastes just ok.
Eat to live, not as a proxy to feel alive.
I think you can have both, so long as you're not stuffing your face 13+ hours a day. The book "Circadian Code" was quite eye opening in this regard.
It depends on your own definition of taste, and arguably adults need to train their taste if their parents didn't do that for them as children.
If burger & fries & milkshake are still your ideal dinner in your 30s, you will be in for a tough fight against your metabolism.
If burger & fries & milkshake are still your ideal dinner in your 30s, you will be in for a tough fight against your metabolism.
True, but if exercise is potentially actually aging you faster, then it is only a matter of time until your quality of life is prematurely compromised, no?
Not necessarily. It is possible to age gracefully and simply die of old age.
The idea that old === lack of quality of life is a narrative written by Food Inc and Big Pharma. They want us to believe the results of their "offerings" are normal. That's simply not the case.
The idea that old === lack of quality of life is a narrative written by Food Inc and Big Pharma. They want us to believe the results of their "offerings" are normal. That's simply not the case.
Aging is more than simply losing your looks.
The aging process affects every system of the body: hearts get weaker, immune systems get weaker, eyesight declines, aches and pains abound, etc.
Weaker systems and organs are more disposed to experience an acute adverse event. Even if you do not have a acute health crisis, having rapidly declining eyesight for example, will definitely impact your quality of life.
I agree that it is possible to age gracefully, but I would say that is a function of having a mostly linear, slow aging process, and excessive exercise may negatively impact that.
The aging process affects every system of the body: hearts get weaker, immune systems get weaker, eyesight declines, aches and pains abound, etc.
Weaker systems and organs are more disposed to experience an acute adverse event. Even if you do not have a acute health crisis, having rapidly declining eyesight for example, will definitely impact your quality of life.
I agree that it is possible to age gracefully, but I would say that is a function of having a mostly linear, slow aging process, and excessive exercise may negatively impact that.
Yes of course. But aging is a natural process. Diabetes (due to obesity, shite diet, too sedentary, etc.) is not normal. You're not going to age gracefully with Diabetes or any other Western diet / lifestyle related diseases.
It is possible to age gracefully. Getting older doesn't mean becoming a monthly health crisis. Extra weight is not ok (read: acceptable) if eventually you're going to lose muscle strength, balance, etc.
My point is, the risk of exercizing too much should not be feared as much as not doing it enough, eating poorly" etc. The number of ppl exercising themselves too much is an edge of an edge case. This article is generally new media hyperbolic.
It is possible to age gracefully. Getting older doesn't mean becoming a monthly health crisis. Extra weight is not ok (read: acceptable) if eventually you're going to lose muscle strength, balance, etc.
My point is, the risk of exercizing too much should not be feared as much as not doing it enough, eating poorly" etc. The number of ppl exercising themselves too much is an edge of an edge case. This article is generally new media hyperbolic.
Couldn't agree more!
> Further intriguing results showed that those at the extremes of physical activity—either too little or too much—experienced accelerated biological aging.
So moderate exercise is the optimal. Not too much or too little. But how does one know what is too much? It is different for different people.
So moderate exercise is the optimal. Not too much or too little. But how does one know what is too much? It is different for different people.
I'd propose that the key to most things in life is moderation through listening to your body. Whether its exercise, food, alcohol, or being in the sun too long your body will warn you if you listen.
Its a skill that we seem to have lost very quickly in the age of modern medicine, pharmaceuticals, and digital technology that distracts us with bright lights and promises to track everything and be able to tell us how to moderate so our bodies don't have to.
Its a skill that we seem to have lost very quickly in the age of modern medicine, pharmaceuticals, and digital technology that distracts us with bright lights and promises to track everything and be able to tell us how to moderate so our bodies don't have to.
I did listen to my body from a young age. It told me to eat as much sweets as I possibly could. And there were absolutely no adverse effects as far as I could tell.
Yes, clever. Are you wanting me to say "no, sugar is the devil!"?
If you want to eat a pile of sugar and can do so without any adverse effects that you care about, buy futures in cane sugar commodities and have a blast.
If you want to eat a pile of sugar and can do so without any adverse effects that you care about, buy futures in cane sugar commodities and have a blast.
If you work full time and have any amount of social life you just cannot exercise too much imho, it just doesn't fit in the schedule. Most people don't even walk 5k steps a day and have 0 exercise outside of that.
I walk an hour per day and exercise an hour 5-6 days out of 7, I consider myself barely active in the grand scheme of things, I'm doing the strict minimum to not rot away at my desk job
As far as I know the only people who really suffer from over training are professional athletes or people who have poor routine
I walk an hour per day and exercise an hour 5-6 days out of 7, I consider myself barely active in the grand scheme of things, I'm doing the strict minimum to not rot away at my desk job
As far as I know the only people who really suffer from over training are professional athletes or people who have poor routine
Bad study aside, a vast amount of people, including probably 99.999% of HN will get nowhere near exercising “too much.” Even if you’re initially fatigued from starting an exercise regimen, that’s just a normal body adjustment period. So I’d say not to worry about it. You can “overreach” at times, going further than you’re ready for, but sustained long-term “too much” exercise is going to be when nearing an elite level of fitness for most people.
I would say, listen to your body. If it says, "I'm fatigued" then give it a rest. If you're catching too many colds - from your immune system being stressed - give it a rest.
It's not necessary to work out *every* day. It's ok to take one or more days off. It's ok to recover.
There's probably blood work that can test for various things (i.e., over-training) but I don't know any off hand.
It's not necessary to work out *every* day. It's ok to take one or more days off. It's ok to recover.
There's probably blood work that can test for various things (i.e., over-training) but I don't know any off hand.
But if it says “eat more pie”, don’t listen.
Just like the craze over drinking 3L of water every day which turned out to be worse than just drinking when you're thirsty, I would suspect just doing what your body tells you is probably best. If you're feeling completely exhausted afterwards, you probably overdid it. If you have so much energy left over that you can't sleep, you under-did it or drank too much caffeine.
> the craze over drinking 3L of water every day which turned out to be worse than just drinking when you're thirsty
Is there some more info about this you could link to? I'm not aware of it being determined to be worse than just drinking when you're thirsty.
Is there some more info about this you could link to? I'm not aware of it being determined to be worse than just drinking when you're thirsty.
Science Vs has an entire episode on this: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/science-vs/xjhz6kn
Thanks!
> So moderate exercise is the optimal. Not too much or too little. But how does one know what is too much? It is different for different people.
"too much" is sky high. Like "training for Tor des Géants" high.
I don't think that anyone being leisurely active can even graze the training-too-much zone.
"too much" is sky high. Like "training for Tor des Géants" high.
I don't think that anyone being leisurely active can even graze the training-too-much zone.
Physical activity, not exercise
Exercise is something you added
If you can walk and just walk sufficient amount (not just to the cat and from the car) regularly you probably count as physically active
Exercise is something you added
If you can walk and just walk sufficient amount (not just to the cat and from the car) regularly you probably count as physically active
re: Walking
After reading "The Comfort Crisis" by Michael Easter, I've become a fan-boy for adding a weighted vest. The extra bit of weight helps, without feeling like a ball-busting workout.
After reading "The Comfort Crisis" by Michael Easter, I've become a fan-boy for adding a weighted vest. The extra bit of weight helps, without feeling like a ball-busting workout.
I've seen some people walking/jogging with weighted vests but never asked, interesting to hear first hand experience.
I don't dig the looks of it tbh. I like to just walk around or to/from places and not look like I am exercising
I don't dig the looks of it tbh. I like to just walk around or to/from places and not look like I am exercising
I haven't read "The Comfort Crisis", but but for the last dozen years, I've spent three and a half months training hard to compete in the Bataan Memorial Death March male civilian heavy division[0], meaning I race a tough marathon course wearing a 35 pound pack. I do well.
I'm pretty sure I'd be in the top 10% of LTPA in that study, at least for my most recent ten years. I haven't spent the money to have any of my longevity markers tested, per-se, but I did get a (free) arterial wall stiffness test[1] last year and my heart did very well for any age group, and yet I was sixty.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them, although I'm about to go for a morning walk and may be gone an hour or so.
[0] https://bataanmarch.com/register/civilian-individual/ [1] https://github.com/ctm/diet/blob/master/blood_work/20230623_...
I'm pretty sure I'd be in the top 10% of LTPA in that study, at least for my most recent ten years. I haven't spent the money to have any of my longevity markers tested, per-se, but I did get a (free) arterial wall stiffness test[1] last year and my heart did very well for any age group, and yet I was sixty.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them, although I'm about to go for a morning walk and may be gone an hour or so.
[0] https://bataanmarch.com/register/civilian-individual/ [1] https://github.com/ctm/diet/blob/master/blood_work/20230623_...
I'm on the opposite side, not caring for my health with bad habits, walking/biking for entertainment reasons when not feeling depressed.
The current fad is "rucking", or putting some weight (sand, rice, books, etc.) into a backpack and hiking around.
But it's not a fad per se. The extra weight can and does serve a purpose.
Calling something a "fad" doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
Is it worse for the back compared to a vest?
Yeah. I kinda had the same hang up. But I bought a cheap vest to try it. I'm ok with it now. I mostly run but on off days I'll wear the vest on a walk. I also wear it when I mow the lawn. Anything to work a bit more but still not too much (i.e., off days).
As a kid watching DragonBall I would have loved that lol
> Further intriguing results showed that those at the extremes of physical activity—either too little or too much—experienced accelerated biological aging.
If it’s at the extreme end of exercise, chances are the effect can be explained mostly by injury. Especially once someone is elderly, an injury that puts them out of commission for months is often the beginning of the end.
If it’s at the extreme end of exercise, chances are the effect can be explained mostly by injury. Especially once someone is elderly, an injury that puts them out of commission for months is often the beginning of the end.
Another factor to consider is that too much exercise can increase the chance of injuries which can lead to long periods of no exercise.
After 40 my rule of thumb is never do intense exercise two days in a row. Hopefully it helps.
After 40 my rule of thumb is never do intense exercise two days in a row. Hopefully it helps.
I often think about that pic: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FhNp_Q8XgAA3O9q?format=jpg&name=...
I think the relatively low risk of injury is negligible when you think of the insane gain in quality of life. I know a 82 years old who ski every single day in winter, cuts his own wood, &c. I know people 1/3rd of his age in much worse shape
I think the relatively low risk of injury is negligible when you think of the insane gain in quality of life. I know a 82 years old who ski every single day in winter, cuts his own wood, &c. I know people 1/3rd of his age in much worse shape
If I've read it correclty (Table 1 in the report: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10274991/#SD1)
Highly Active (C5) appears to be 7-8 metabolic equivalent (MET) hours a day and Active (C4) is 3-4 hours a day.
8 MET hours would be running for an hour at enough pace to be consuming about 600 calories, assuming your consumption at rest is 75 - please correct me if you understand METs better
Highly Active (C5) appears to be 7-8 metabolic equivalent (MET) hours a day and Active (C4) is 3-4 hours a day.
8 MET hours would be running for an hour at enough pace to be consuming about 600 calories, assuming your consumption at rest is 75 - please correct me if you understand METs better
I wonder if excessive exercise simply leads to less sleep, thus speeding up aging. If you are trying to run 70 miles a week, hold down a full time job, take care of kids, etc, then you end up stressed out and sleeping less.
Time and time again, we learn that 'your mileage might vary'. I've found that the best way to live life is to find out what is considered best, and adapt it to you and your body.
Just for some context, the highly active group was doing about 8 MET hours per day, which is the equivalent of jogging for about an hour and a half every day at a 10 min mile.
[deleted]
It seems strange to correct for BMI differences, since a lower BMI is one of the main ways regular exercise is supposed to improve your health.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There was actually a youtube video about this very topic that I think is pretty good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic4nUxMYBRk
The takeaway is: If you are not training for marathons or the tour de france you are probably not overexercising to the point of causing negative health outcomes