#62

Thanks for the info and the study. I don’t know what % of CR that BJ is using. I know from my own experience that lots of things cause my testosterone level to drop - stress is a big one, and calorie restriction is a huge factor. The average total T in the CALERIE study was 460-480, and BJ is almost 2x that, so I still think it’s fair to call him an outlier. I also don’t recall him sharing LH and FSH results (but I also don’t follow his every move, haha).

1 Like
#63

Yes, but better prospective studies don’t just take a single baseline value, but follow up every few years to see if people’s habits changed. Long followup is good, but long followup requires more check-ins to confirm that whatever data they collected at baseline is still relevant.

#64

The paper’s full text is free: see Table 1. (The active and sedentary twins both had respectable and nearly identical BMI distributions of 23.5/23.4 ± 3.4).

2 Likes
#65

Thanks. This is what I expected which, when applied to Americans, leads to the erroneous headline that a normal American (fat and sedentary) wouldn’t get much benefit from exercising and should be careful not to do too much (as if too much exercise was in the realm of possibility for a “normal American”). Sure it happens but so do many other weird low probability events that we shouldn’t use to guide our lives (lightning strikes out of a clear blue sky, meteors falling to earth, an obese person takes up ultra marathons and eventually injures his heart by exercising too much for too long).

Sorry for the rant.

1 Like
#66

100% hear you @约瑟夫_拉维尔

In some ways the flip side is that it might “for once” be more relevant for many of us on this forum who on average are less obese than the average American

In fact one of the recurring issues that is called out with the studies we often discuss here is “how does that translate” to a more healthy demographic “like us”.

1 Like
#67

@Neo I agree with your premise but it’s just one study that comes to conclusions that are hard to understand. My decision is to not let it influence my behavior until more information becomes available.

I am linking to a podcast with Herman Ponzer of Burn fame. I believe his work (into which he dives deeply in discussion) is central to understanding much of why sedentary or low level exercise is detrimental to long term health.

In short, exercise makes the body function better because it is expecting and counting on physical activity happening daily. (I’ll add my interpretation that low exercise is a signal to the body that something is wrong, which the body uses to upregulate processes that are detrimental.). Let Ponzer, the body energy budget is fixed within a normal range of activity between zero and something below tested extremes: Tour of France, pregnancy, running a marathon a day for 4 months (listen to podcast). Within the normal range, bodies burn the same calories over time regardless of exercise level. If exercising, the body spends less on everything else: becoming more efficient and doing less. To draw a line between the two: if a person exercises regularly that person has less chronic inflammation so the immune system is doing less. This is a good thing.

The only unanswered question is where is the line between the normal range where more exercise is probably better vs the point where more exercise is detrimental. Overtraining, Immune system down too far with frequent illness, etc. I don’t know where the line is but for a modern American who works in an office and is not moving much of the day (as in 15-18 hours a day, exercising for 5 hours a week is barely getting the rust off. 10 hours of > zone 1 (walking) plus at least some HIIT (max HR seen) and resistance training to near failure is in the ballpark for me (62 yo) as I can recover from that load without feeling cooked. If I was younger the number might be higher as I built headroom to allow declines in the future (bone density, muscle mass, cardiovascular system for better blood flow to brain and heart and muscles, lung function, etc.

But as I’ve said before, these things are slow to build and fast to lose. Once gone they are hard to get back. If you wait until old to try to get it back the odds are very long.

I have chosen a path that I enjoy and that gives me options for the future. If it turns out that I don’t need as much fitness later, I can slow down to let some fitness go. But if I need more later I’ll be in sad shape to get it.

That’s my opinion

3 Likes
#68

Think we closer than it seems

As mentioned, I generally work out 6ish times per week (plus rucking, daily walking and frequent water sports).

My main point is that this paper supports the animal studies showing that exercise while great for health does not extend lifespan (and the lack of animals studies showing that it extends lifespan even if we have a tone of studies that CR, key molecules, genetic modifications, etc do).

2 Likes
#69

My man, nothing has been shown to extend the lifespan of people except things that improve health. Anything else is supposition based on partially known mechanism based on a 1-8% understanding of how the body works. Or it’s based on monkeys living in cages indoors or you pick the study. I take rapamycin because it makes me healthier today, and I get an emotional boost from holding a lottery ticket on life extension. It’s the coloring of the sprinkles on the icing of my longevity cake.

Something more wonderful may come along. I hope so. The first things to emerge will be solutions to implement before damage sets in, I’d bet. I have low hopes for any future intervention that will overcome a long term lack of health.

Am I too pessimistic?

I think the smart plan is to give myself options. Do you see the old or metabolically ill people in the gym trying valiantly to get themselves back over the minimum viable threshold? Super tough. I’m trying to avoid falling into that hole. Am I wasting my time or using up my life force prematurely? Maybe but it’s guesses all around. I’ll go with my best guess since I have to use a guess.

Maybe I’m wrong. When I think I’m wrong I’ll change my mind.

2 Likes
#70

This sounds very good for health and enjoyment. Congrats.

#71

A tale of three uncles on my mother’s side.

As you may know from my posts, I have always been active, going to the gym, jogging, bike riding, etc. In addition, from the first time I read Adele Davis’s book Let’s Eat Right to Keep Fit, I started to tailor my eating habits. I started taking supplements after reading Durk Pearson & Sandy Shaw’s book, Life Extension.
I do these things because it seems reasonable that doing them might extend lifespan.
Before rapamycin, the common mantra was that calorie restriction is the only thing known to extend lifespan.
Unfortunately, my observations of friends and relatives tell me that interventions such as exercise do little to extend lifespan.

Let’s go back to the uncles. They lived far apart and had different lifestyles. One was a rancher who smoked and drank heavily most of his life. Number two lived a sedentary life playing poker and drinking moderately; he didn’t smoke. Number three was a truck driver, who didn’t drink or smoke but kept in good shape physically and was riding bikes into his eighties. They all lived into their eighties and were mobile until the day they died. They all lived to approximately the same age ~84, which I am approaching.

My conclusion from a lifetime of observation of friends and relatives is that it pays to have lucky genes and that genetics are the most significant factor, trumping exercise and lifestyle.
Undoubtedly, I have known people who shortened their lifespans by their lifestyle habits.
But I have no proof that anybody I have known has extended their lifespan.

Who knows why I have always felt the need to exercise and lead a healthy lifestyle? That’s just the way that I am.

7 Likes
#72

:point_up_2:Sum total of wisdom in this realm.

Funny, because I’m not much younger than you (soon 67), and after a lifetime of extensive reading the literature and personal observation, I am of the same opinion.

Trying to optimize lifestyle interventions, diet, exercise etc., is fiddling at the margins. Yes, you can become a bit healthier, maybe, maybe, but always keep in mind the equation of effort extended to results achieved. I am not going to exercise 10 hours a week to gain nothing much, over doing my minimum, which is 4.5-5 hours a week, because I happen to hate exercise. If you enjoy it, you should do as much as you want, even if it shortens your life. Life is for living, not spending time hating it.

I do my exercise minimum, and move on to other things. There’s the survey of what nurses heard from patients in terminal care, as they lie dying - none ever said “I wish I spent more time at the office”. And I can’t imagine lying on my deathbed regretting not spending more time at the gym or sh|tting myself with HIIT, puking my guts out. I’d rather spend that extra time with my wife, going to a museum, concert or a ballet, or just reading quietly in the garden. Do what pleases you, most of the time, you won’t impact your health or longevity very much - if you love exercise, do so, as much as you want, go wild. Same with diet. I’m lucky in that just as I happen to hate exercise, I naturally like eating a very healthy pescetarian mediterranean type diet - but, again, I feel no guilt about occassionally going to a restaurant once a month or two months to check out some special dishes, and yes, I might have some cake with my coffee. It’s not going to make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

Bad habits like smoking, excessive drinking or using street drugs - there you are gambling big time. This has the potential to really debilitate or kill you. Not for sure, because there are all too many centenarians who smoked or drank like fiends, but you are really cutting it close and gambling. I don’t, because I luckily am not drawn to that, but it’s also too risky for my risk tolerance. YMMV.

So what about all those drugs and supplements? Well, it’s a hobby. I enjoy doing it, I enjoy reading the research and talking to smart people like on this board. But deep down, I kinda suspect it won’t make much of a difference, if at all. If lucky, I might gain a year or two - if lucky. If lucky. Who knows, maybe in 10, 15, 20 years, if I’m still around, new interventions will come about to give me another boost to hang around this beautiful green planet - if you love life, you want to hang around as long as possible, and that means living the life you want, not punishing yourself with massive exercise if you hate it (just do the minimum), or starving yourself or ramming yourself into a tub of ice water or burning in a sauna. Live a reasonably healthy lifestyle, and odds are you’ll outlive the crazy longevity fanatic who just ran up a mountain to sit in a burning sauna. YMMV.

3 Likes
#73

@desertshores Thanks. Good story. The studies say genetics play a small role but my own family experience also (as does yours) says otherwise. My Father side of the family died in their 60’s and 70’s in poor health; they were active but ate terribly with a history of drinking and smoking. My Mother and her 2 sisters are alive and very healthy in mid-80’s. Their mother (my grandmother) lived to 106. The siblings of my grandmother died in their late 80’s after long lives of smoking (cancer) and drinking. I’d agree that they shorted their lives while my mother’s mother did not shorten her life until the very end. She died of complications from a fall due to weakness. She had stayed active via gardening in her own home until she was 103, then her children made her come live with one of her daughters (because they were afraid for her) where she lost her purpose and physical activity. If she had stayed active who knows how long she might have lived.

I’m aiming for Grandma’s lifespan without the muscle weakness. We’ll see.

2 Likes
#74

Another indication that you don’t need to adhere to some rigorous exercise schedule of daily or regular throughout the week sessions. Just a couple days on the weekend is good enough and doing more frequent exercise during the week brings nothing extra in the big scheme of things.

If anything, it looks like just doing those couple of days on the weekend is better than slogging throughout the week, with lower all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cancer mortality.

So, relax. Stay active, but no need to be especially diligent with exercise schedules and amounts. You might be even better off.

Based on the UK biobank.

Association of Accelerometer‐Derived Physical Activity Pattern With the Risks of All‐Cause, Cardiovascular Disease, and Cancer Death

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.124.039225

“During an 8.1‐year median follow‐up, 3965 adults died from all causes, including 667 from cardiovascular disease and 1780 from cancer. Both the active weekend warrior group (all‐cause death: hazard ratio [HR], 0.68 [95% CI, 0.64–0.74]; cardiovascular disease death: HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.58–0.83]; cancer death: HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.71–0.89]) and the active regular group (all‐cause death: HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68–0.81]; cardiovascular disease death: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.61–0.94]; cancer death: HR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.76–0.99]) demonstrated a lower mortality risk compared with the inactive group after following the recommended 150 minutes of MVPA per week. Furthermore, there was no discernible difference in the mortality risk between the active regular group and the active weekend warrior group.

Conclusions

Engaging in PA concentrated within 1 to 2 days was related with a similar reduction in mortality risk as more evenly spread activity. Our findings are particularly significant for individuals who find it challenging to engage in regular PA due to time constraints.”

2 Likes