9 ms·

Scientists have synthesized a new compound that ‘mimics’ exercise

82 points by fraqed 11y ago

snake117 11y ago
Even though this compound has a lot of potential to help those in need, I can see this being marketed as the new Hydroxycut.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  If it truly mimics exercise, that would be a great thing.
- Igglyboo 11y ago
  If this compound truly does "mimic exercise" it would change the world. The average lifespan would skyrocket and we could be so much more efficient due to overall health and almost no time wasted for exercise.
tunesmith 11y ago
It talks more about losing weight than gaining muscle mass, not sure if it's purported to help with that side of things.
heimatau 11y ago
I'll take four please.
jug5 11y ago
Why don't you just... Exercise?
reasonattlm 11y ago
The real takeaway from this research is that AMPK manipulation in the manner demonstrated here is categorically not an exercise mimetic because it does nothing in healthy individuals. A real exercise mimetic would extend median life span, since that's what exercise does in mice. Other strategies that end up showing altered AMPK levels along the way have been shown to extend life and improve health in laboratory species. It is very complex, and researchers are very far from understanding how even very reliable and straightforward ways of slowing aging work. E.g. calorie restriction. Studied for a century, no comprehensive explanation of how it works yet. This, along with tiny beneficial effects, is the reason we should largely ignore all of these efforts to throw drugs at metabolism in the hopes of lengthening healthspan. It is a grand waste of time, because even if wondrously successful the best you could hope for in the next few decades is something that is outperformed by actually exercising or practicing calorie restriction. What a waste of billions of dollars that will be. Yet that's what is going to happen, judging by the willingness to fund this sort of work. It is like the research and development community has learned nothing from the outcome of fifteen years of sirtuin research. If we want to see radical life extension in our lifetimes, it is going to come from SENS and the like, deliberate targeted efforts to repair specific aspects of biochemical damage that cause cell and tissue dysfunction. Not random drugs mined from the natural world, but elegantly engineered biotechnologies that do exactly what they are intended to do. You might look at allotopic expression of mitochondrial DNA for example, as developed by Gensight at the moment ( http://www.gensight-biologics.com/ http://www.gensight-biologics.com/ ). The problem is identified, and a precise fix applied to cells via gene therapy to make exactly the problem and only the problem go away. That is the future of medicine. Yet the regulations and inertia behind the old drug development pipeline is very resistant to change. We'd better hope that the disruption represented by Gensight and other similar efforts takes hold, because we're going to age and suffer just like our parents and on pretty much the same schedule if it doesn't.
- skybrian 11y ago
  > "the best you could hope for in the next few decades is something that is outperformed by actually exercising or practicing calorie restriction" That would still be a monumental achievement (probably in the billions of dollars range) if a practical treatment came out of it. Most health costs don't come from healthy people, after all. A lot of people don't exercise and very few people practice calorie restriction. But if there is other research that would work better, then the opportunity cost is high too.
- gnoway 11y ago
  This is kind of a straw man, isn't it? I realize the article leads with "exercise in a pill," but it's really about a compound that might help treat obesity and type 2 diabetes. Effect on lifespan/healthspan is only implied (via treatment of disease). Edit: you might also want to be a little more up-front about your apparent involvement with alternative avenues of research.
  - reasonattlm 11y ago
    It leads with exercise in a pill because AMPK manipulation is broadly expected to be a path towards an exercise mimetic. Go do some background reading on AMPK and related proteins and pathways and their effects on longevity and health in lower animals. What I find annoying about this reporting is that it is being spun as a success when by all measures it is a failure. It is a failure in exactly the same way sirtuin research was a failure, in that it only appears to produce benefits in metabolically abnormal individuals, and even then they are not high quality benefits. Meaning it isn't at all what was aimed for: the researchers have failed in even their original modest goals of slightly slowing aging by recapitulating the broad effects of exercise. Of course you can still make a profit selling very marginal treatments for type 2 diabetes to people who have that condition because they are obese and thus metabolically abnormal. This is a condition that can actually be reversed right up until very late stages by dietary restriction ( http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/db11-1835 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/db11-1835, http://www.bbc.com/news/health-13887909 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-13887909 ), for all that few people appear to either know or be willing to act on that knowledge. The sort of therapies that might result from AMPK manipulation would be terrible in comparison to the outcome of just eating less. But that has nothing to do with making real progress in medicine. Medical research in general is so very vulnerable to disruption: you have entrenched groups producing terrible products at massive cost under heavy regulation in the midst of a revolution in the underlying technologies and plummeting costs of creating new knowledge and therapies. Something has to give.
scottlocklin 11y ago
If y'awl exercised, you'd know that meat heads have been fiddling with things which do this for ... decades. Almost a century if you count DNP. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146743673&pagenumber=1 http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146743673&pag...
- xacaxulu 11y ago
  It's "y'all" thank you.
  - gadders 11y ago
    If there are more than five readers, shouldn't it be "All y'all"?
  - elros 11y ago
    It really depends how south you go :-D
- joeyspn 11y ago
  Yes, they use this stuff as supplements, but thing is that they do real exercise. If you think that a pill is gonna make you healthier than 1-2h of daily exercise you're in for a surprise... These journos and their misleading reports...
- joshribakoff 11y ago
  From what I've read, in general the oral prohormones are harsher on the body as far as side effects. Some of the oral prohormones kill the liver & kidneys, which is why "real" steroids (hormones) are injected into the blood stream, which just trades off for different side effects, like higher risk of heart disease. Doing actual exercise feels great & lowers risk of heart disease. If some miracle breakthrough was discovered, I'd probably abstain & continue to just exercise. It seems like we never understand the true side effects of these things until decades later.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
MicroBerto 11y ago
This is obviously going to be a hot topic as we understand more and more of the mechanisms behind our biology. Another to look into is BAIBA, which we recently covered on our blog. https://blog.priceplow.com/baiba https://blog.priceplow.com/baiba The social implications of this get very scary when you look at it down the road. If we crack the code and really don't need to work out to stay fit some day, it would change a LOT in terms of mate selection, to say the least. Not sure how soon it will actually happen though.
linky123 11y ago
80% of people with type 2 diabetes are that way by choice. They chose to be obese. (Only 20% of type-2 diabetes isn't caused by obesity.) 99% of obese people are obese by choice. (The 1% that aren't are people who lack the mental ability to control their food intake.) I hope we never spend the public's money on this.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  > 99% of obese people are obese by choice. Are you willing to make the same claim about other addicts, smokers, alcoholics, drug users, sex addicts, and so on and so forth? In all cases when you perform a behaviour your brain releases chemicals which make a person feel better, these chemicals which should be associated with behaviours which improve survival prospects can become addictive (in particular in a world where we have unnaturally high access to things which were scarce during our evolution, like rich foods). Now in the cases of illegal drugs this is the intended effect, and without argument they're some of the most addictive substances we know of. But it is utterly absurd to simply dismiss the mental health aspect (addiction, depression, etc) of obesity and call it a straightforward choice. It might be a choice to you and I, but by definition we aren't addicts. Just like with alcohol or sex, we can do it without the need or drive to OVER do it, addicts cannot... I do find in recent years and completely against all evidence, bigotry has come out strongly against people struggling with food addiction. I legitimately feel like it is nothing more than attacking the mentally ill, nothing more.
  - linky123 11y ago
    You are correct in noting that obese people are "mentally ill." They are not "diet resistant" nor do they have "slow metabolisms", PCOS, or thyroid problems.
    - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
      > You are correct in noting that obese people are "mentally ill." Thanks for saying, but that's a little in opposition to what you said earlier (that it is a "choice"). By definition the mentally ill don't choose to be that way (and by extension neither do the obese). I feel like we've tried and tried to address obesity with diets, but that's like trying to stop a sinking boat by bailing out water. Bailing water might keep you afloat for longer, but it doesn't plug up the leak that got you there to begin with. Obesity is the same. Diets might keep them "afloat" for longer, but without dealing with the underlying addiction that caused the problem to begin with, you're only delaying the problem not solving it. Which isn't to say there are easy answers, but some studies have used a combination of counseling, antidepressants, and monitoring to achieve compelling results[0]. It isn't a magic bullet however. PS - You can either come at addicts with hate/disdain or sympathy/compassion, I choose to do the latter. "There but for the grace of God go I" [0] https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/press-releases/2011/nih-studies-find-long-term-weight-loss-methods-for-clinical-practice https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/press-releases/2011/nih-studi...
INTPnerd 11y ago
This sounds like a great enabler drug! You can eat more junk food and not gain more weight, even if you don't exercise, as long as you take this pill! If this does ever get sold as a pill, it may make billions for the people selling it, the junk food companies, and other drug companies that will benefit from the side effects this does not completely eliminate from your poor diet and lack of exercise, not to mention the side effects the pill itself will have. I can't wait!
- simplexion 11y ago
  Not sure why this comment is being down-voted. It is an easy out for obese people to continue on their over-consumption of food which could lead to other problems.
anti-shill 11y ago
do they deliver?
- anti-shill 11y ago
  yes, and then you tip them and say "thank you...come again..."
niutski 11y ago
I failed to get my hands on the actual research paper so I'm relying completely on the article's description of the study. To my unscientific eye it seems that the only thing altered between the control group and the test group was diet. Both were given "Compound 14". The test group that was fed a high fat diet showed better results. Claiming that it's thanks to "Compound 14" seems a little bit unscientific. What I would like to know is: 1) What did the normal diet look like? 2) What would the results be like if both the control and the test group were fed the exact same diet from birth? 3) What are the researchers' biases? 4) Who is funding the research?
sanxiyn 11y ago
Full text of the paper is here: http://www.cell.com/chemistry-biology/fulltext/S1074-5521%2815%2900234-3 http://www.cell.com/chemistry-biology/fulltext/S1074-5521%28...
booop 11y ago
Don't have much to say about how the compound affects your metabolism, but I'm weary of any kind of 'workout pill'. For years I too hoped that were would be some machine or pill that would automatically get me ripped without having to put in the conscious effort. However, once I finally got into the habit of exercising, I think what was more valuable than the results on my body was the habit of pushing myself to the limit every time and going beyond my comfort zone. It's something that touches everything you do.
teekert 11y ago
Bravely we move towards the day where we can just eat, eat and eat all day while staying alive to eat more! But why not start working on an implant that stimulates our pleasure centers directly, at the push of a button and omit the eating part altogether! We'd not even have to lift our arm to our mouths! Just get a Soylent drip feed! The future looks bright!
fineline 11y ago
Why do we need a substitute to a healthy, balanced life? I'm sure its an amazing piece of science, but how is this better than being physically active? As a person who exercises, am I supposed to be considering this instead of my current lifestyle? And if not - if it wouldn't be a better option for me - then how could it be a better option for anyone else? I'm genuinely bewildered. What is this for?
- david-given 11y ago
  Because there are only 24 hours in a day? Exercising takes a really long time. If I wanted to be physically active, I need to allocate a big chunk of my day towards exercising, which means I need to give up something else --- something I actually enjoy. One thing that physically active people tend not to realise is that not everybody finds exercise enjoyable. I am not particularly unfit; I do various physically active things; but for me, regular exercise is horrible. I find it an utterly miserable experience; uncomfortable in every possible way, and worst of all, incredibly boring. And it never gets better. A while ago I made myself train up and enter a 10km race, and completed in a reasonable time. As I progressed, the only thing that changed was that I was capable of prolonging the discomfort for longer. That's a negative feedback loop! I was so glad when I actually completed the race and could finally stop. I am so, so jealous of people who actually enjoy doing this crap. So if there's a side-effect free way of getting the health benefits of exercise without having to put up with an hour a day of tedium and lactic acid reaction, that would be amazing. </vent>
  - Evgeny 11y ago
    Exercising takes a really long time. Is it possible you're doing it wrong, or maybe we have different understanding of what "really long time" is? I exercise 4 times per week, and my workout lasts 40-60 minutes including shower and clothes change. This includes pre-workout stretching, strength training and some static / balance exercises. I try to use my time as effective as possible, so I'm almost never idle. I superset my exercises, i.e. do a rowing exercise, immediately followed by a pressing exercise. But some rest is still required, so I do a stretch or a balance exercise, i.e. working on handstands while resting. This lets me include 6-8 exercises for 2-4 sets each in about 30-40 minutes. Now you may say 4 hours per week is still too much. If I was seriously pressed on time, I would reorganise my training to only exercise each body part at most 1 time per week, thus combining 4 workouts into 3 shorter or even 2 longer ones, bringing the time down to 2.5-3 hours per week. I may stop exercising smallest muscles, such as biceps, directly. Anyway, following my schedule I consider myself in a very good shape for 41, I'm 178cm/74kg, around 10-12% bodyfat if not less, can bench about 1.3 times my bodyweight, squat over 1.5 and deadlift over 2 times bodyweight.
fauigerzigerk 11y ago
Mice again. Maybe someone can answer my naive but serious question: How many cures that were tested on mice turn out to work in humans?
- robotkilla 11y ago
  > Among the many advantages to using the mouse as a model organism, the most important is their striking similarity to humans in anatomy, physiology, and genetics. Over 95% of the mouse genome is similar to our own, making mouse genetic research particularly applicable to human disease. http://research.jax.org/mousegenetics/advantages/advantages-of-mouse.html http://research.jax.org/mousegenetics/advantages/advantages-...

82 points by fraqed 11y ago

Even though this compound has a lot of potential to help those in need, I can see this being marketed as the new Hydroxycut.

merpnderp 11y ago
If it truly mimics exercise, that would be a great thing.
Igglyboo 11y ago
If this compound truly does "mimic exercise" it would change the world. The average lifespan would skyrocket and we could be so much more efficient due to overall health and almost no time wasted for exercise.

tunesmith 11y ago

It talks more about losing weight than gaining muscle mass, not sure if it's purported to help with that side of things.

heimatau 11y ago

I'll take four please.

jug5 11y ago

Why don't you just... Exercise?

reasonattlm 11y ago

The real takeaway from this research is that AMPK manipulation in the manner demonstrated here is categorically not an exercise mimetic because it does nothing in healthy individuals. A real exercise mimetic would extend median life span, since that's what exercise does in mice. Other strategies that end up showing altered AMPK levels along the way have been shown to extend life and improve health in laboratory species. It is very complex, and researchers are very far from understanding how even very reliable and straightforward ways of slowing aging work. E.g. calorie restriction. Studied for a century, no comprehensive explanation of how it works yet. This, along with tiny beneficial effects, is the reason we should largely ignore all of these efforts to throw drugs at metabolism in the hopes of lengthening healthspan. It is a grand waste of time, because even if wondrously successful the best you could hope for in the next few decades is something that is outperformed by actually exercising or practicing calorie restriction. What a waste of billions of dollars that will be. Yet that's what is going to happen, judging by the willingness to fund this sort of work. It is like the research and development community has learned nothing from the outcome of fifteen years of sirtuin research. If we want to see radical life extension in our lifetimes, it is going to come from SENS and the like, deliberate targeted efforts to repair specific aspects of biochemical damage that cause cell and tissue dysfunction. Not random drugs mined from the natural world, but elegantly engineered biotechnologies that do exactly what they are intended to do. You might look at allotopic expression of mitochondrial DNA for example, as developed by Gensight at the moment ( http://www.gensight-biologics.com/ http://www.gensight-biologics.com/ ). The problem is identified, and a precise fix applied to cells via gene therapy to make exactly the problem and only the problem go away. That is the future of medicine. Yet the regulations and inertia behind the old drug development pipeline is very resistant to change. We'd better hope that the disruption represented by Gensight and other similar efforts takes hold, because we're going to age and suffer just like our parents and on pretty much the same schedule if it doesn't.

skybrian 11y ago
> "the best you could hope for in the next few decades is something that is outperformed by actually exercising or practicing calorie restriction" That would still be a monumental achievement (probably in the billions of dollars range) if a practical treatment came out of it. Most health costs don't come from healthy people, after all. A lot of people don't exercise and very few people practice calorie restriction. But if there is other research that would work better, then the opportunity cost is high too.
gnoway 11y ago
This is kind of a straw man, isn't it? I realize the article leads with "exercise in a pill," but it's really about a compound that might help treat obesity and type 2 diabetes. Effect on lifespan/healthspan is only implied (via treatment of disease). Edit: you might also want to be a little more up-front about your apparent involvement with alternative avenues of research.
- reasonattlm 11y ago
  It leads with exercise in a pill because AMPK manipulation is broadly expected to be a path towards an exercise mimetic. Go do some background reading on AMPK and related proteins and pathways and their effects on longevity and health in lower animals. What I find annoying about this reporting is that it is being spun as a success when by all measures it is a failure. It is a failure in exactly the same way sirtuin research was a failure, in that it only appears to produce benefits in metabolically abnormal individuals, and even then they are not high quality benefits. Meaning it isn't at all what was aimed for: the researchers have failed in even their original modest goals of slightly slowing aging by recapitulating the broad effects of exercise. Of course you can still make a profit selling very marginal treatments for type 2 diabetes to people who have that condition because they are obese and thus metabolically abnormal. This is a condition that can actually be reversed right up until very late stages by dietary restriction ( http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/db11-1835 http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/db11-1835, http://www.bbc.com/news/health-13887909 http://www.bbc.com/news/health-13887909 ), for all that few people appear to either know or be willing to act on that knowledge. The sort of therapies that might result from AMPK manipulation would be terrible in comparison to the outcome of just eating less. But that has nothing to do with making real progress in medicine. Medical research in general is so very vulnerable to disruption: you have entrenched groups producing terrible products at massive cost under heavy regulation in the midst of a revolution in the underlying technologies and plummeting costs of creating new knowledge and therapies. Something has to give.

scottlocklin 11y ago

If y'awl exercised, you'd know that meat heads have been fiddling with things which do this for ... decades. Almost a century if you count DNP. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146743673&pagenumber=1 http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146743673&pag...

xacaxulu 11y ago
It's "y'all" thank you.
- gadders 11y ago
  If there are more than five readers, shouldn't it be "All y'all"?
- elros 11y ago
  It really depends how south you go :-D
joeyspn 11y ago
Yes, they use this stuff as supplements, but thing is that they do real exercise. If you think that a pill is gonna make you healthier than 1-2h of daily exercise you're in for a surprise... These journos and their misleading reports...
joshribakoff 11y ago
From what I've read, in general the oral prohormones are harsher on the body as far as side effects. Some of the oral prohormones kill the liver & kidneys, which is why "real" steroids (hormones) are injected into the blood stream, which just trades off for different side effects, like higher risk of heart disease. Doing actual exercise feels great & lowers risk of heart disease. If some miracle breakthrough was discovered, I'd probably abstain & continue to just exercise. It seems like we never understand the true side effects of these things until decades later.
- saiya-jin 11y ago

MicroBerto 11y ago

This is obviously going to be a hot topic as we understand more and more of the mechanisms behind our biology. Another to look into is BAIBA, which we recently covered on our blog. https://blog.priceplow.com/baiba https://blog.priceplow.com/baiba The social implications of this get very scary when you look at it down the road. If we crack the code and really don't need to work out to stay fit some day, it would change a LOT in terms of mate selection, to say the least. Not sure how soon it will actually happen though.

linky123 11y ago

80% of people with type 2 diabetes are that way by choice. They chose to be obese. (Only 20% of type-2 diabetes isn't caused by obesity.) 99% of obese people are obese by choice. (The 1% that aren't are people who lack the mental ability to control their food intake.) I hope we never spend the public's money on this.

UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
> 99% of obese people are obese by choice. Are you willing to make the same claim about other addicts, smokers, alcoholics, drug users, sex addicts, and so on and so forth? In all cases when you perform a behaviour your brain releases chemicals which make a person feel better, these chemicals which should be associated with behaviours which improve survival prospects can become addictive (in particular in a world where we have unnaturally high access to things which were scarce during our evolution, like rich foods). Now in the cases of illegal drugs this is the intended effect, and without argument they're some of the most addictive substances we know of. But it is utterly absurd to simply dismiss the mental health aspect (addiction, depression, etc) of obesity and call it a straightforward choice. It might be a choice to you and I, but by definition we aren't addicts. Just like with alcohol or sex, we can do it without the need or drive to OVER do it, addicts cannot... I do find in recent years and completely against all evidence, bigotry has come out strongly against people struggling with food addiction. I legitimately feel like it is nothing more than attacking the mentally ill, nothing more.
- linky123 11y ago
  You are correct in noting that obese people are "mentally ill." They are not "diet resistant" nor do they have "slow metabolisms", PCOS, or thyroid problems.
  - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
    > You are correct in noting that obese people are "mentally ill." Thanks for saying, but that's a little in opposition to what you said earlier (that it is a "choice"). By definition the mentally ill don't choose to be that way (and by extension neither do the obese). I feel like we've tried and tried to address obesity with diets, but that's like trying to stop a sinking boat by bailing out water. Bailing water might keep you afloat for longer, but it doesn't plug up the leak that got you there to begin with. Obesity is the same. Diets might keep them "afloat" for longer, but without dealing with the underlying addiction that caused the problem to begin with, you're only delaying the problem not solving it. Which isn't to say there are easy answers, but some studies have used a combination of counseling, antidepressants, and monitoring to achieve compelling results[0]. It isn't a magic bullet however. PS - You can either come at addicts with hate/disdain or sympathy/compassion, I choose to do the latter. "There but for the grace of God go I" [0] https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/press-releases/2011/nih-studies-find-long-term-weight-loss-methods-for-clinical-practice https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/press-releases/2011/nih-studi...

INTPnerd 11y ago

This sounds like a great enabler drug! You can eat more junk food and not gain more weight, even if you don't exercise, as long as you take this pill! If this does ever get sold as a pill, it may make billions for the people selling it, the junk food companies, and other drug companies that will benefit from the side effects this does not completely eliminate from your poor diet and lack of exercise, not to mention the side effects the pill itself will have. I can't wait!

simplexion 11y ago
Not sure why this comment is being down-voted. It is an easy out for obese people to continue on their over-consumption of food which could lead to other problems.

anti-shill 11y ago

do they deliver?

anti-shill 11y ago
yes, and then you tip them and say "thank you...come again..."

niutski 11y ago

I failed to get my hands on the actual research paper so I'm relying completely on the article's description of the study. To my unscientific eye it seems that the only thing altered between the control group and the test group was diet. Both were given "Compound 14". The test group that was fed a high fat diet showed better results. Claiming that it's thanks to "Compound 14" seems a little bit unscientific. What I would like to know is: 1) What did the normal diet look like? 2) What would the results be like if both the control and the test group were fed the exact same diet from birth? 3) What are the researchers' biases? 4) Who is funding the research?

sanxiyn 11y ago

Full text of the paper is here: http://www.cell.com/chemistry-biology/fulltext/S1074-5521%2815%2900234-3 http://www.cell.com/chemistry-biology/fulltext/S1074-5521%28...

booop 11y ago

Don't have much to say about how the compound affects your metabolism, but I'm weary of any kind of 'workout pill'. For years I too hoped that were would be some machine or pill that would automatically get me ripped without having to put in the conscious effort. However, once I finally got into the habit of exercising, I think what was more valuable than the results on my body was the habit of pushing myself to the limit every time and going beyond my comfort zone. It's something that touches everything you do.

teekert 11y ago

Bravely we move towards the day where we can just eat, eat and eat all day while staying alive to eat more! But why not start working on an implant that stimulates our pleasure centers directly, at the push of a button and omit the eating part altogether! We'd not even have to lift our arm to our mouths! Just get a Soylent drip feed! The future looks bright!

fineline 11y ago

Why do we need a substitute to a healthy, balanced life? I'm sure its an amazing piece of science, but how is this better than being physically active? As a person who exercises, am I supposed to be considering this instead of my current lifestyle? And if not - if it wouldn't be a better option for me - then how could it be a better option for anyone else? I'm genuinely bewildered. What is this for?

david-given 11y ago
Because there are only 24 hours in a day? Exercising takes a really long time. If I wanted to be physically active, I need to allocate a big chunk of my day towards exercising, which means I need to give up something else --- something I actually enjoy. One thing that physically active people tend not to realise is that not everybody finds exercise enjoyable. I am not particularly unfit; I do various physically active things; but for me, regular exercise is horrible. I find it an utterly miserable experience; uncomfortable in every possible way, and worst of all, incredibly boring. And it never gets better. A while ago I made myself train up and enter a 10km race, and completed in a reasonable time. As I progressed, the only thing that changed was that I was capable of prolonging the discomfort for longer. That's a negative feedback loop! I was so glad when I actually completed the race and could finally stop. I am so, so jealous of people who actually enjoy doing this crap. So if there's a side-effect free way of getting the health benefits of exercise without having to put up with an hour a day of tedium and lactic acid reaction, that would be amazing. </vent>
- Evgeny 11y ago
  Exercising takes a really long time. Is it possible you're doing it wrong, or maybe we have different understanding of what "really long time" is? I exercise 4 times per week, and my workout lasts 40-60 minutes including shower and clothes change. This includes pre-workout stretching, strength training and some static / balance exercises. I try to use my time as effective as possible, so I'm almost never idle. I superset my exercises, i.e. do a rowing exercise, immediately followed by a pressing exercise. But some rest is still required, so I do a stretch or a balance exercise, i.e. working on handstands while resting. This lets me include 6-8 exercises for 2-4 sets each in about 30-40 minutes. Now you may say 4 hours per week is still too much. If I was seriously pressed on time, I would reorganise my training to only exercise each body part at most 1 time per week, thus combining 4 workouts into 3 shorter or even 2 longer ones, bringing the time down to 2.5-3 hours per week. I may stop exercising smallest muscles, such as biceps, directly. Anyway, following my schedule I consider myself in a very good shape for 41, I'm 178cm/74kg, around 10-12% bodyfat if not less, can bench about 1.3 times my bodyweight, squat over 1.5 and deadlift over 2 times bodyweight.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago

Mice again. Maybe someone can answer my naive but serious question: How many cures that were tested on mice turn out to work in humans?

robotkilla 11y ago
> Among the many advantages to using the mouse as a model organism, the most important is their striking similarity to humans in anatomy, physiology, and genetics. Over 95% of the mouse genome is similar to our own, making mouse genetic research particularly applicable to human disease. http://research.jax.org/mousegenetics/advantages/advantages-of-mouse.html http://research.jax.org/mousegenetics/advantages/advantages-...