10 ms·
There's a totally different way to live that also has mounting evidence, and it's a way that sounds a lot more satisfying to me. For awhile now, the "obesity p
by ellyagg 10y ago
There's a totally different way to live that also has mounting evidence, and it's a way that sounds a lot more satisfying to me.
For awhile now, the "obesity paradox" has been a thing, where segments of the population who are a little heavier than one would expect actually have the best all-cause mortality rates.
Recently there's been some pushback on this "paradox", but the one I want to call attention to is here:
http://annals.org/aim/article/2499472/relationship-among-body-fat-percentage-body-mass-index-all-cause http://annals.org/aim/article/2499472/relationship-among-bod...
The problem with the obesity paradox is that it's been based on the flawed BMI. In this study, they actually did DEXA scans of elderly women's body fat percentage, and those with the highest BMI and lowest body fat percentage had the best all-cause mortality rates.
This suggests plenty of calories plus strength training is in the running for a longevity lifestyle. This makes sense intuitively and if one is familiar with the panoply of beneficial physiological effects from exercise on the human body. And, it would not come as a shock to find that increased strength from greater muscle improves, e.g., balance and coordination to prevent accidents in the elderly, nor that increased muscle mass provides a protective tissue reserve for fighting disease without the concomitant downsides of adipose.
- imgabe 10y agoThis jibes with my own pet theory for longevity. Our bodies evolved in much more demanding conditions than we have now. Wild temperature swings, strenuous work, etc. I think a lot of current diseases are caused by the systems the body developed to deal with these things that now have nothing to do, like an unloaded motor spinning out of control.
- rixed 10y ago> Our bodies evolved in much more demanding conditions than we have now. Why do you think how our body evolved is related to longevity ?
- nomel 10y agoAre you asking why longevity is a desirable trait?
- ycombinete 10y agoEvolutionary longevity, beyond a point, is not something that necessarily gets selected for.
- rixed 10y agoI'm asking how selection could influence a trait that manifests itself past reproductive age.
- frobozz 10y agoLong juvenile period. A 10yo human child with living parents has a greater chance of surviving to breeding age than the same aged child with dead ones. Also, a reproductive pair with living post reproductive (but still not decrepit) parents can breed at a higher rate as they are can delegate some childcare to them.
- camkego 10y agoChildren might have better likelihood of eventual reproduction if their parents are in good health as the parents raise their children during and past the parent's reproductive age. I could even imagine present and healthy grandparents having an influence on the reproductive probabilistic success/failure of their grandchildren.
- drewgross 10y agoPeople continue to influence their children long after they stop reproducing. Genes that help you children have more children are selected for, so something like a gene that keeps you alive long enough to care for your grandchildren seems plausible.
- IanCal 10y agoAlthough there are also clear costs to this, and as you look at longer timescales the benefits become less pronounced. I'd at least say I don't see a strong evolutionary pressure for extended lifespans.
- olalonde 10y ago> I think a lot of current diseases are caused by the systems the body developed to deal with these things that now have nothing to do, like an unloaded motor spinning out of control.
- gumby 10y agoDon't be faked out by BMI; it's no different from the Dow Jones Index (something easy to calculate with pen and paper, or in your head), that gives you a low-resolution signal at best. If you have a BMI of 50 (or 16) you have problems, but you already knew that. It's bizarre that people worship it, but then again, simplicity has always beat having to think.
- FabHK 10y agoVery nice analogy. What's the equivalent of the S&P 500 then? :-)
- analog31 10y agoYou can be a bit healthier by just doing a whole variety of things and accepting the average, than by letting an expert choose what things you should do. ;-)
- nradov 10y agoThe equivalent is probably a 2D DXA scan with body composition report. Supposedly it can measure the amount of bone, muscle, and fat in your body to within 1% of actual values. Those scans are widely available for <$50. BMI is still a pretty good proxy measurement. There's a very high correlation between BMI and body fat content. People like to complain that BMI is useless because a few weightlifters show up as "obese" but those are so rare as to be statistically insignificant.
- rangibaby 10y ago> People like to complain that BMI is useless because a few weightlifters show up as "obese" but those are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. A good explanation I saw is that if you care what your BMI is you probably aren't a weightlifter
- IanCal 10y agoIIRC the largest problem comes from BMI under-reporting high body fat.
- rsync 10y ago"This suggests plenty of calories plus strength training is in the running for a longevity lifestyle." Why not both ? Relatively high calorie diet, over the long run, to support strength training and a high level of exercise ... but regular (weekly ? twice-weekly ?) fasting to partake in what appear to be the benefits of forcing your body to change gears and clean house (so to speak). You can have a relatively high calorie diet measured over the course of a week or a month while still fasting regularly.
- sambe 10y agoIn this context: because the article is about total calorie consumption, not timing.
- silverdrake11 10y agoThe article does seem to be about total calorie consumption so fasting once a month or year does not seem to be beneficial as long as total calories remain the same. What doesn't make sense to me is that exercise is known to be healthy but it will always lead to an increase in calorie consumption especially cardiovascular. When you exercise you are expending more energy so that means you need to take in more energy or calories.
- amelius 10y ago> This suggests plenty of calories plus strength training is in the running for a longevity lifestyle. But will strength training not wear out the joints?
- jahnu 10y agoStrengthening your muscles can relieve strain on joints. For example strengthening your thighs reduces stresses on your knees. At least according to my orthopaedic specialist.
- inthewoods 10y agoThis! My wife had chronic knee pain that no one could figure out given her relatively youthful age. A smart trainer spotted that her leg muscles were very, very weak. She strengthened them and now has no knee pain - and in fact is running about 20-25m per week where before she assumed she'd never run again.
- ellyagg 10y agoWell, I happen to have personal experience here. I had pain on the outside of my right knee for a few years. I also had clicking in my knees whenever I would squat down, ever since I was a teen. One day, I did an hour of Bulgarian split squats[1], which is a one leg exercise -- I did it with no weight. The next day my knee pain was essentially gone. One day! It turns out, after reading up on it, unilateral leg strength is important for knee health. The right muscles being strong and coordinated takes stress off the tendons, ligaments, and cartilage that support the knee. Doing one leg squats teaches and trains your glutes to balance and stabilize your body on one leg. [1] For an unrelated experiement.
- amelius 10y ago> This suggests plenty of calories plus strength training is in the running for a longevity lifestyle. But will strength training not wear out the joints?