= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
falenas108 comments on Exercise isn't necessarily good for people - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (53)
I'm not sure where this statement comes from. Googling "exercise experiment health" in google scholar has the first 8 results be experiments, where they took an group of inactive people and made them exercise, and they showed improvement over people who did not. I didn't look beyond the first 8, but I suspect there are many more
Yes there are. Google "exercise cvd", you'll find several that show improvement.
The only relavent result I could find says the opposite: http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v29/n1/abs/0802842a.html
Mixed results, not enough to show a firm conclusion either way.
Bottom line, the speaker appears to be heavily cherry-picking the studies he shows.
It's not mixed results but mixed people. For the median person, exercise improves blood pressure. But for 12% of people exercise makes their blood pressure worse every time (and for 20% it's always a wash).
For 12% of people it makes blood pressure higher not worse. The presenter chooses the terms 'adverse' and 'worse' for his own purposes.
My girlfriend has chronic hypotension, and can easily faint or become dizzy when standing or if she doesn't have enough water. Anecdotally, regular exercise seems to help prevent that. It's hard to find numbers, but the closest thing to solid I could find is that 26% of people with diabetes (couldn't find general population) suffer from hypotension.
If the 32% of people receiving no change or an increase in blood pressure fall on the bottom end of the bloodpressure spectrum, they're getting exactly what they need. Regardless of how the speaker labels the results.
Here is the study cited. There are four health markers that were chosen to be analyzed for this analysis. Actual physical fitness (ie VO2 max, strength, body fat percentage) were not measured. In all but one of the examined studies, diet was not controlled for, and they specifically only included endurance exercise, when virtually every recommendation is to combine endurance and strength exercise. Claiming that this population doesn't respond to exercise is a vast overstatement. More accurately, you might be able to say that "Endurance exercise alone isn't sufficient to improve health markers in a small fraction of the population."
EDIT: The inverse to that is "Endurance exercise alone is sufficient to improve health markers in most of the population," which doesn't strike me as a good reason to not prescribe it.
And three out of their four markers are known to be strongly influenced by diet!
My understanding was that you can see exercise induced changes in risk factors (blood pressure etc) relatively easily, but that evidence for changes in health outcomes (like risk of death, lowered incidence of disease etc.) were on shakier ground.
He also claims that HIIT as more standard 150 aerobic exercise shows the same level of response for those same risk factors.
The guy claims that variable response to exercise (including ~10% negative responders) was a robust finding that most studies see. He didn't explicitly discuss whether they had ruled our within person variation as the cause of that data.
From what I can tell, this seems to be true. Does he talk about this in the video?
I remember him doing so.