= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
G0W51 comments on Optimal Exercise - 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 (141)
Thanks for the response, I think you may be right. Can you give me the links to the studies that test higher caloric expenditure? Do you know if one can exercise too much?
Actually I take back what I said, it looks like a levelling off is occurring even before 3500 is reached.
so 3.5x as much expenditure results in 2.4x the risk reduction. This review indicates that the studies on athletes (which is the only readily available population performing exercise at higher average expenditures than 3500kcal/wk) are terrible, with few or no controls for other factors.
"Sufficient total activity" doesn't necessarily mean optimal total activity or when diminishing return begins. The Eurobarometer study isn't free, so I can't tell exactly what it means by "sufficient total activity." What are your thoughts on this?
Distinguishing optimal total activity isn't possible given the limitations of current studies. Sufficient total activity is pointing to the activity level where correlations between higher levels of activity and longevity become too noisy. The tendency in studies like this is for the error bars to grow at the top and bottom of the range due to multiple factors.
Do you know of any reviews about the "dose-response relationship" of exercise and mortality other than the 4 we've mentioned?
I don't think so, or at least if I did find any they were poor enough to disregard.
Ok. Do you know of any evidence that mortality rates increase after any amount of exercise? I suppose reverse causality would make it very hard to tell, but intuitively an 80-year old trying to exercise 10 hours per day seems unhealthy.
Another question: Do you know if aerobic and anaerobic exercise have different effects on mortality? I recall hearing (from a potentially unreliable source) that aerobic exercise was healthier, but I haven't managed to find any scientific literature comparing them. Also, could one hit diminishing returns in anaerobic exercise without hitting hitting diminishing returns in aerobic? Again, I haven't found an literature on this.
I have vague memories that Olympic athletes aren't the most healthy people and don't live too long, but I don't have a link, sorry.
Yes, long distance running has some evidence of harm (CVD Rates). I don't have the cite off hand.
They certainly have different short term adaptations. I know of no study that seriously attempts to separate them other than by "class of athlete" e.g. soccer players vs olympic weightlifters. The issue is that it's hard to separate them. Soccer players (especially professionals) still do resistance training etc. But yeah, soccer players do live longer than pure power lifters. I do expect aerobic activity to have a larger effect ceteris paribus.
I'll try to find the study evidencing increased CVD in long distance runners. I appreciate the response.
This article cites 8 studies on endurance training http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2013/08/23/extreme-endurance-exercise.aspx
No direct link to longevity has been shown IIRC, so take it with a grain of salt.