Why exercise alone won't save us

[vexed87]

Here is a thought provoking article from the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/j ... nt-save-us

I have given up on the gym, packed in running and have always struggled to remain committed to a body weight exercise regime in the long run... my saving grace is the 20 mile round trip to work I do most days on a bike, I haven't quit that yet simply because I don't have reliable access to a car.

I do many jobs by hand, rather than rely on gadgets, but this article has me thinking about what else I can 'in source', which is tricky considering we don't live hunter-gatherer lifestyles anymore.

[take2]

It’s an interesting article. My own anecdotal evidence on this agrees. I used to live in northern NJ, driving all the time to get to the work, gym, etc. Although I had a more active work life than most (engineer on construction sites, walking around maybe 30% of my day) it was still very sedentary.

I found myself gaining unwanted weight as I got into my late twenties, although much of that was probably in the crap SAD work-provided lunches I would indulge in.

I moved to London a few years back and no longer drive. Walking everywhere with minimum public transport as needed. I also cut out the work provided lunches in favor of home cooked lunches and within a few months dropped back down in weight without any conscious attempt on my part.

My work life is actually more sedentary now (banking) but I use a 90 min round trip walking commute vs 30 min round trip public transport. I used to do CrossFit but cut that out too and just get up early to do HIIT training or medium length runs before work.

The tough part about most places in the US (outside of A few cities like NYC or SF) is that they just aren’t well enough developed to forgoe driving. When I was younger I spent about two years in rural VA - the “eastern shore”. Despite it not being developed or commercialised it was still virtually impossible to get anywhere without a car as distances were just not set up for walking. The closest supermarket was about an hour walk away. Cycling maybe, but I admit those were the days before I thought about such things.

I was back in northern NJ for an extended period this summer and unwittingly fell right back into the driving mentality.

[Kriegsspiel]

It's certainly true that exercise alone won't save us from fatness. You can run a couple miles, but replace that entire caloric burn in 1 minute of eating a donut. To paraphrase Lyle McDonald, the only people who can exercise enough to burn off significant amounts of calories are the people that don't need to in the first place: elite athletes. Kinda like Jacob's story about the dinner party where the fat people told him he didn't need to eat healthy because he was already lean

Fitness crazes are like diets: if any of them worked, there wouldn’t be so many.

This quote could be made true by two words, "if any of them worked for everybody, there wouldn't be so many." Scott Adams has good advice. He says to find an activity or two that you like, and do them all the time. I'd say most everyone should do some kind of weight training. You'll build muscle, which will increase your resting metabolic rate, and you'll be able to do everyday stuff easier.

I like reading while walking on a treadmill. If I can find an exercise bike that I could read/use a laptop on for a good price on Craigslist, I'll start doing that too.

[jacob]

@vexed87 - Everything that has a motor in it usually has a handtool version that doesn't. Lawnmower, cultivator, snowblower, car, food processor, handmixer, vacuum cleaner, saw, screw driver, washing machine,...

Start with those.

@all - It still blows my mind that the average strength/fitness level of prehistoric humans exceeded that of the fittest modern humans. I like this article https://qz.com/quartzy/1517773/the-best ... s-you-age/ but in a sense, I also hate it because it just shows the "adequate" dosage. In the guardian article it's mentioned that elite athletes until gain 2.8 years of longevity and suggests that this might not be worth it due to all the effort involved. However, the number of quality years experienced by senior athletes >>> ditto senior normies! In the qz.com article, if you exercise like a 20yo, you can get to feel and move like you're 20 or 30 for decades going into your 50s and 60s. Those who pursue a lifetime of comfort like a 70yo can get to experience what it's like to be 50 or 60 in their 40s. The older you get, the more obvious the activity-difference in your cohort is.

[vexed87]

@vexed87 - Everything that has a motor in it usually has a handtool version that doesn't. Lawnmower, cultivator, snowblower, car, food processor, handmixer, vacuum cleaner, saw, screw driver, washing machine,...

All good suggestions. I actually already own most alternatives, I use a push-lawn mower, snow shovel, knives/whisk, sweeping brush, saw, however none of them really address inactivity because I can't use those tools enough in any given day to really benefit from the physical activity. I prefer them all because

-minimalist aesthetic
-cheaper than the motorised alternatives
-Useful after SHTF scenario.

Admittedly, I don't do ANY clothes washing by hand, I'm not sure it's worthwhile, though it would certainly keep me busy with the amount of clothing the household goes through. Underwear aside, I think I would just wear the same clothes all week to avoid that chore.

I think my greatest issue is the long periods sitting. I think it would be neat if I could somehow generate power whilst sitting at a desk. Though I'm not sure how I could practically (and cheaply) store and use it. I wonder if the constant motion might even negatively impact working productivity in white collar jobs that require focus on intricate tasks.

I'm definitely fitter than I was a decade ago on account of the lengthy commute, if not quite as lean, I let my diet slip a bit lately. I'm working on that again, less sugar, refined carbs and beer. I was never into sports in a big way, I could run though - 10k events, been there done that, doesn't do it for me any longer. My brief attempts to take up running again always end up the same way as my resistance regimes.

[jacob]

I think my greatest issue is the long periods sitting. I think it would be neat if I could somehow generate power whilst sitting at a desk. Though I'm not sure how I could practically (and cheaply) store and use it. I wonder if the constant motion might even negatively impact working productivity in white collar jobs that require focus on intricate tasks.

IIRC, it's possible to generate 1/3 of one's functional threshold all day long. That's somewhere around 60-100W depending on the human which coupled to a set of pedals could power a laptop or a small computer with a small screen. I think much [white collar] work could be done while "sitting in the saddle". Anything routine or stuff that doesn't require heavy mental lifting (the brain also burns a lot). I think I could answer emails, dabble in the forum, or read while taking notes, while pedaling. I don't think I could write serious stuff or solve complicated problems.

This reminds me ... I need to add electric motors to my skill set.

I've read a book while walking on a tread mill. That was sufficiently annoying that I don't make a habit of it. For me bobbing my head up and down for each step is not really conducive to anything but watching (TV) or talking. Walking while typing on a keyboard ... hmm ..

[prognastat]

@Jacob

I think you're right that it's better to look at the quality of your years when working out rather than the absolute amount of extra years gained through regular exercise. Even now it gives me much more energy when I do so and I'm sure this will only become more true as I get older given what I see in the differences between old people that have been and still are working out and those that didn't.

Also for pure weight loss diet is still the larger factor. It's easy to eat the calories you just burnt in just a few minutes even if you've worked out for hours.

[J_]

@Jacob "The older you get, the more obvious the activity-difference in your cohort is".
Those numbers are... just numbers. Each such article seems to cite the same mantra.

When I was 53 I had poor health and no stamina. But these things are reversible! I got a better and better health in my later 50s and 60s. Now in my seventies I am blessed with perfect health and I am rather good in rowing and cross country skiing. Two sports which require the use of my whole body in supple movements and are done in the open.

(And yes, exercise alone is not enough, restrict to good nutrition and taking time to rest are the other parts but that is discussed elsewhere).

[vexed87]

For those skipping their reading, the article is not disputing or highlighting the importance of nutrition, rather it is challenging the notion of exercise as a solution for a sedentary workforce and society.

Exercise as a means to an end is failing on a societal level, even if some individuals do have success with the various fad-like approaches.

[prognastat]

I try to sprinkle little bits of activity through my day:
- Walk/Bicycle to work
- Walk/Bicycle to grocery store
- Take the stairs instead of the elevator
- Walk on breaks
- Work out during lunch

There's of course only so much you can do if you are working in an office environment.

Things I could possibly add:
- At the office go to the bathroom on a different floor and take the stairs
- Get coffee/water in the break room on a different floor

[7Wannabe5]

Very few people die of lifestyle diseases before age 40, and evolution doesn't much care if you live any longer than that.

[jacob]

It [evolution] should care insofar inclusive fitness is a thing and old humans know things that young ones don't.

[jacob]

If I may hi-jack a little further. Senior athletes (really anyone over 28 ) have only three physiological disadvantages over younglins

• VO2max declines steadily. This is why nobody wins marathons over the age of 30 and why the masters races in cycling start at age 32. However, with exercise, the decline can be slowed down significantly. If you start high (say 57mL/kg/min at age 18) and support it with exercise you can keep it higher than the average untrained individual (~35-40) for decades. However, if you compete in anything where "air" is the deciding factor, you will never beat younger people who are also in great shape. Also see, viewtopic.php?t=6588
• There's some disagreement whether recovery-rates go down with age. Some say it does, others say it doesn't. There seems to be more agreement that soreness/pain increases with age so perceived recovery rate goes down, e.g. I'm still sore, so I need to go lightly today => overall less exercise intensity => less overall performance.
• If exercising too hard it leads to injuries from overwork. This is the problem for soldiers, blue collar workers, and professional athletes. That's the main reason you don't see many NFL players over 40. Their bodies are simply broken. However, what this means is only that you can't compete professionally. It doesn't mean that you can't compete at lower levels.

With effort, other aspects like strength, work capacity, resting heart rate, can stay constant into your 60s. This means they depends more of how active you are than how old you are.

Back to the regular programming. I don't think "walking" qualifies as exercise---at least not by the standards of the ancients. That it's even mentioned/considered only shows how low the bar is in the 20th/21st century. 20 seconds of HIIT. SECONDS?! It does not seem possible to fiddle with one's lifestyle (e.g. get coffee from the machine further down the office) is going to make any material difference unless the bar is very low (which it is). Adding in activity that gets the heart rate over 140bpm, is hard enough to sweat, and lasts for hours ... is not found in modern life. It is simply not competitive.

Ripsawing with a handsaw burns something like 600kcal/hr. That's close to jogging (with your arms). I last about 10 mins at a time doing this. I've read records of woodworkers from the pre-machine era mentioning how they start squaring boards (hand planing) in the morning and by midday, they're up to their knees in shavings. That's just an entirely different league that what I'm capable of. I'd compare it to doing 10 pushups a minute ... for 4 hours straight. It's entirely possible... but damn! Now imagine repeating that the next day, and the next ... and you'd be looking longingly after that power planer.

Or compare the draw weight of medieval [war] longbows with what Olympians and hunters are shooting today.

[7Wannabe5]

Well, it's true that we don't die almost immediately after spawning like many species. OTOH, in prehistoric times, at 54 I would likely already be a great-grandmother, and it seems unlikely that survival benefits accrue from more than a few generations of hand-me-down strategies. Of course, some old silverbacks might throw off a few extra spawn well into their decrepitude, so that resulted in the rest of us having to sometimes keep muddling along into our 90s.

That's the main reason you don't see many NFL players over 40.

...or sugar-babies either. Knees and hips are critical.

[jacob]

Hmm... I would have thought that hunting & gathering both of which rely on experiential intelligence would only get better with age. When innovation isn't rapid (so anything before the renaissance), any activity would benefit from some old-timer wisdom. It's a system that is sufficiently low-tech that "hands" could be coordinated with context-free instruction. Of course it's entirely different today where the very young (haven't learned enough) and the very old (experience no longer relevant) become liabilities.

[prognastat]

@7W5
Well there could be an evolutionary benefit to living healthily a little longer past 40 insofar as you are able to help improve the odds of your offspring. If you can reasonable successfully have kids up to about 35-40 then being alive and in good shape for at least 5-10 years beyond that could be adaptive.

@Jacob
Yeah walking isn't really exercise, was more of an addition to your day beyond exercise to keep moving a bit more throughout your day. Not something people used to need to do, but these days with sedentary jobs it might make a difference.

[jacob]

@Augustus - I suspect they were doing more than walking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rar%C3%A1 ... tic_skills https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-st ... arahumara/

Walking 3-4 hrs/day corresponds to 140,000 steps/week in modern "fitbit"-parlance. (A sedentary person does about 20-25k/week.)
That gap is not filled by rerouting one's coffee/toilet trips ...

[7Wannabe5]

I find it hard to imagine the average child-bearing or post-child-bearing age female of any primitive culture doing a whole lot of running in her daily routine. They didn't make heavy-duty spandex nursing bras and jogging strollers back then. Walking many miles while carrying approximately 30 lbs. on the other hand...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8304358

[luxagraf]

@Augustus - I suspect they were doing more than walking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rar%C3%A1 ... tic_skills https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-st ... arahumara/

Not to mention that, at least in north america, almost all trade prior to the arrival of Europeans was based on walking/running with heavy packs full of trade goods on a tumline on your head. Imagine going 20-40 miles a day with a backpack that straps across your forehead. We're so soft we don't realize how soft we are.

[7Wannabe5]

Average life expectancy of Tarahumara is 45. Hard livin' doesn't always pay dividends.