4 ms·

The Healthiest People in the World Don’t Go to the Gym

29 points by gozzoo 8y ago

sincerely 8y ago
This "bluezones.com" website is some sort of service that charges for meal planning. I'm not sure how reliable a source that is.
btrettel 8y ago
For years, I've told people that the best way to get into cardiovascular shape was to make it an unavoidable part of their life, not whatever motivation hack or special workout they seem interested in. For me, a bike commute does the trick. Unfortunately, in the US riding a bike on the streets quickly shows you how little many people value the lives of cyclists. But the safety statistics improve almost every year, showing that the tide is turning. Just like people choose where to live to have a good driving commute, you might need to change where you live to have a good cycling commute. This seems to disappoint many people who are basically locked in to a location that's bad for cycling (too long a commute, poor safety, etc.), but it's necessary to give cycling a fair chance. Many people are incredulous that I buy groceries with a bike as well. This is completely possible for an individual if you have storage on your bike and go weekly. Plus, as an added bonus I don't buy much junk food because I don't have the space.
- comprev 8y ago
  I've been cycling to work for the last ~5years, and the practicality of a commute is a key factor in where I decide to accept a job. I live in Amsterdam and the commute is ~6km each way. It might not seem very much, but I ride whatever the weather and whatever time of day/night. It helps enormously having the dedicated cycle path infrastructure. I'm a cyclist at heart and did wonder if the oversaturation of daily biking would alter my view from "enjoyable pastime" to "necessary evil". It's almost done the opposite. Not only has my fitness improved (so I can enjoy longer rides with less effort), but the fresh air and independence (leave and arrive by my own steam, not waiting for a bus or stuck in a traffic jam) really does make each day start better. It's also changed my perception of what can be achieved - even if it's chucking down with rain and a howling wind.... I still have to get on two wheels and pedal to work. If only the government would understand all the benefits having a proper safe cycling infrastructure can bring to the people...
  - baud147258 8y ago
    But if you're cycling, you're not paying fuel-based taxes...
    - btrettel 8y ago
      And? Cyclists also can't use many of the most expensive infrastructure projects (e.g., highways) either. They also don't cause anywhere near as much damage to the roads as motor vehicles. Plus, in the US at least, roads are usually paid for through general taxation. The value of the gas tax is small and has only been decreasing. (All of this ignores the massive parking subsidies cyclists have to pay for but can't use too.)
      - baud147258 8y ago
        I should have added sarcasm in my post: I think cycling is a great way to do your commute, I have done for years and I have the chance of living in a country with very good infrasctructure, but also where fuel tax is 60% of price and the parent post is about Holland, where the fuel tax is even higher (but I don't know where it is allocated).
  - btrettel 8y ago
    Infrastructure can be helpful, but poorly done it can hurt a lot as well. In the US I would say infrastructure is often bike safety theater. In Austin there are quite a few segregated lanes that I refuse to use because the intersections are not segregated and drivers far too frequently turn without checking for cyclists. I have had far too many close calls. These lanes probably do increase the number of cyclists, but are they actually safer? Ultimately, what matters more is drivers improving how they interact with cyclists. Having spoken with dozen if not hundreds of drivers I am quite familiar with the "I had no choice [aside from almost running you over]", which is never true in my experience. Drivers always have the choice of waiting, but too many are impatient and literally value saving seconds over someone else's physical safety. I think US drivers as a whole are slowly realizing this. The worst is when a driver nearly runs you over right before a stoplight, which you both sit at for a few minutes. In this case the time saved was zero, and this happens a lot more frequently than I would like. Unfortunately many drivers don't think ahead much or else they would often realize that they'd have to wait anyway, so there's no point in passing.
- francisofascii 8y ago
  Yes, you are much more motivated when it is "unavoidable." I either take the bus to work or get my wife to drop me off, then run home (about 4 miles). To your other point, I used to bike, but found it safer to run.
- maury91 8y ago
  I work at nearly 3 miles from my home, at the beginning I used to go by bike (because I don't like to pay hundreds for the metro when the bike is faster), after a while I wanted to lose some weight and I decided to literally step up my game, now my bike is parked in the office bike racks from months, and I only use my feet to come to the office.
corysama 8y ago
There was a TED talk about regions with unusually high life expectancy. They identified 3 common themes amoung them: 1) Their lifestyle encouraged lots of low-key, continuous activity. You want a plate? Go get the footstool because grandma keeps her plates on a high shelf. 2) Their cultures encourage small meals and not eating more than you really need. Instilling your kids with “Finish your plate” guilt is a bad idea. 3) Their cultures encourage lots of socialization with lifelong groups of friends hanging out and doing things together daily forever.
- eberkund 8y ago
  Completely agree about the low-key continuous activity. I go to the gym partly because I feel like I need to balance out my otherwise sedentary day with an hour of intense workout. However I can see why someone who walks or bikes to work and is constantly on their feet might feel different.
  - phicoh 8y ago
    It is worth noting that prolonged activities mostly burn fats, whereas short (90 minutes or less) high intensity mostly burn carbs. If you only burn carbs, it is hard to get rid of excess fat.
- baud147258 8y ago
  > 2) Instilling your kids with “Finish your plate” guilt is a bad idea. Or the parents could serve appropriate portions in the plate instead? Usually it's always the veggies which are last in the plate, but when the dessert arrives, there's suddenly lot of room left.
- maury91 8y ago
  I'm from one of those regions, you are right on point 1 and 3, but you are totally wrong on point 2. In Sardinia not finishing you plate is offensive, and you should always finish, not accepting a beer offered by a stranger is offensive and you have to accept and drink it. And we cook a LOT, a big difference I notice when coming to live in London, is that British eats a 1 course meal, while in Sardinia Lunch and Dinner are both 3 courses meal. And during festivals, holidays and weddings we step up our game, an usual wedding has something like 50 courses, where you eat from 1pm until 11pm. When we go to the beach we don't bring a sandwich, we bring meatballs, lasagna, cold pasta, cold rice a couple of watermelons, and enough food for eat an entire week. To say in small words, in Sardinia meals are extra large
whack 8y ago
The body of the article has some great suggestions, but the headline is clickbait. Lots of low-intensity activity is great for health of course. But if you only have 3 hours per week to exercise, spending those 3 hours at the gym doing high-intensity exercise, is far better than just taking a leisurely stroll. For people with busy lives, going to the gym provides the best ROI for your time. For an obvious illustration of this, you can see the research done on HIIT vs low-intensity exercises: http://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval-training-exercise/ http://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval-trainin...
- sinatra 8y ago
  > But if you only have 3 hours per week to exercise I think the point is that you don’t have only 3 hours in a week. You can bring physical activity in many other things you’re already doing. One minor example that I’m trying to focus on: I go for a walk when I take any phone calls.
  - btrettel 8y ago
    Great suggestion. I often make calls if I am walking to get dinner. It's also a better use of time than just walking alone.
maym86 8y ago
Nothing is quantified in this article. Define healthiest? The framing of this is a nonsense way of saying get some daily exercise. Maybe "the healthiest people in the world" would be even helathier if they went to the gym too? There's a fad of prematurely optimizing for what's best (in diet too) when actually what would help most is getting more people to do something active more often. I would be much more supportive of this article if it didn't try to discourage some types of exercise as not being perfect but just explained that walking and biking to work is good for you too. Just do the exercise you enjoy and can keep doing regularly. Don't worry if it's not going to make you the healthiest person in the world. Just start with doing something regularly be it in the gym, HIT, walking or riding your bike to work.
dictum 8y ago
> Go ahead and cancel your membership The upside to the Daily Mail style is that, like a scammer intentionally aiming for the credulous, its total confidence and lack of misgivings helps weed out unintended audiences.
cryptozeus 8y ago
Got pay walled. Any other link ?
gwn7 8y ago
I agree with the article but the given recommendation is not practical for most people. Yes, there are so many things fundamentally wrong with our lives but people need to be practical. There is nothing wrong with gyms and high intensity exercise. They are indeed worse than the recommended form of exercise but implying that they are unnecessary is a bad advice for many. I think before giving this kind of general advice one needs to remember that not everybody has the luxury of adopting a lifestyle like the world's centenarians. "Quit your gyms!" advice won't be helpful at all for many. This somehow reminds me of the "the right thing" vs "worse is better" duality in software development. Note: I'm a health geek and hate gyms myself but for other reasons.
maury91 8y ago
I'm one of the people from one of the blue zones (Sardinia), on one side what he said is true, you don't need to go to the gym to be healthy, but by just merely walking a little bit more you will not achieve such a great benefit. All the elderly people I know have a lifestyle that can be considered weird, for example: - My grandfather goes every single day to farm his land, he spent 3-4 hours every day doing all kind of farm jobs, mostly potting plants and digging the land. Even if he is after his 70 he is stronger than me (and I don't consider myself weak). - My neighbour (an old lady around 110 years old, that lives alone and sometimes you say around 4 generations of daughters at her house (I usually see her in company of her daughter, her granddaughter, her grand-granddaughter and her grand-grand-granddaughter) wakes up every morning before the sun can raise and goes to the fields to cut wood and then she carries it on her back. - My other old neighbour wakes up every morning very early to, and goes to farm, he his nearly never at home and hangs out with the gang of old people (it's not a gangster, they simply walk around the village and they sit in every bench in every square) To summarise, I think the difference is the mentality, the people I know, old or young have all in common their absurd stubbornness, all these people loves their work, and even after going to pension they want to continue working (many says they will work until death), many of the elderlies weren't farmer before pension, but they choose to start doing it instead of doing nothing, essentially is people that don't like to lay on the couch and watch the TV, but instead going on the nature and pass their time there. Also many of these people have some unhealthy habits, like drinking insane doses of wine, beer, limoncello and mirto. There's a ton of other differences, but I don't want to write an article in this comment
- Bjartr 8y ago
  > essentially is people that don't like to lay on the couch and watch the TV, but instead going on the nature and pass their time there Have there been studies on what kind of percentage of the population exhibits a stubbornness against doing nothing? Is it inherent/genetic, or is it cultural (or how much is contributed by those factors). Those that oppose measures like a universal basic income often point to a tendency to do nothing and while I can agree that certainly there exists some portion of the population that that would describe, I don't know just how prevalent it is, or if it can be "fixed" socially.

29 points by gozzoo 8y ago

This "bluezones.com" website is some sort of service that charges for meal planning. I'm not sure how reliable a source that is.

btrettel 8y ago

For years, I've told people that the best way to get into cardiovascular shape was to make it an unavoidable part of their life, not whatever motivation hack or special workout they seem interested in. For me, a bike commute does the trick. Unfortunately, in the US riding a bike on the streets quickly shows you how little many people value the lives of cyclists. But the safety statistics improve almost every year, showing that the tide is turning. Just like people choose where to live to have a good driving commute, you might need to change where you live to have a good cycling commute. This seems to disappoint many people who are basically locked in to a location that's bad for cycling (too long a commute, poor safety, etc.), but it's necessary to give cycling a fair chance. Many people are incredulous that I buy groceries with a bike as well. This is completely possible for an individual if you have storage on your bike and go weekly. Plus, as an added bonus I don't buy much junk food because I don't have the space.

comprev 8y ago
I've been cycling to work for the last ~5years, and the practicality of a commute is a key factor in where I decide to accept a job. I live in Amsterdam and the commute is ~6km each way. It might not seem very much, but I ride whatever the weather and whatever time of day/night. It helps enormously having the dedicated cycle path infrastructure. I'm a cyclist at heart and did wonder if the oversaturation of daily biking would alter my view from "enjoyable pastime" to "necessary evil". It's almost done the opposite. Not only has my fitness improved (so I can enjoy longer rides with less effort), but the fresh air and independence (leave and arrive by my own steam, not waiting for a bus or stuck in a traffic jam) really does make each day start better. It's also changed my perception of what can be achieved - even if it's chucking down with rain and a howling wind.... I still have to get on two wheels and pedal to work. If only the government would understand all the benefits having a proper safe cycling infrastructure can bring to the people...
- baud147258 8y ago
  But if you're cycling, you're not paying fuel-based taxes...
  - btrettel 8y ago
    And? Cyclists also can't use many of the most expensive infrastructure projects (e.g., highways) either. They also don't cause anywhere near as much damage to the roads as motor vehicles. Plus, in the US at least, roads are usually paid for through general taxation. The value of the gas tax is small and has only been decreasing. (All of this ignores the massive parking subsidies cyclists have to pay for but can't use too.)
    - baud147258 8y ago
      I should have added sarcasm in my post: I think cycling is a great way to do your commute, I have done for years and I have the chance of living in a country with very good infrasctructure, but also where fuel tax is 60% of price and the parent post is about Holland, where the fuel tax is even higher (but I don't know where it is allocated).
- btrettel 8y ago
  Infrastructure can be helpful, but poorly done it can hurt a lot as well. In the US I would say infrastructure is often bike safety theater. In Austin there are quite a few segregated lanes that I refuse to use because the intersections are not segregated and drivers far too frequently turn without checking for cyclists. I have had far too many close calls. These lanes probably do increase the number of cyclists, but are they actually safer? Ultimately, what matters more is drivers improving how they interact with cyclists. Having spoken with dozen if not hundreds of drivers I am quite familiar with the "I had no choice [aside from almost running you over]", which is never true in my experience. Drivers always have the choice of waiting, but too many are impatient and literally value saving seconds over someone else's physical safety. I think US drivers as a whole are slowly realizing this. The worst is when a driver nearly runs you over right before a stoplight, which you both sit at for a few minutes. In this case the time saved was zero, and this happens a lot more frequently than I would like. Unfortunately many drivers don't think ahead much or else they would often realize that they'd have to wait anyway, so there's no point in passing.
francisofascii 8y ago
Yes, you are much more motivated when it is "unavoidable." I either take the bus to work or get my wife to drop me off, then run home (about 4 miles). To your other point, I used to bike, but found it safer to run.
maury91 8y ago
I work at nearly 3 miles from my home, at the beginning I used to go by bike (because I don't like to pay hundreds for the metro when the bike is faster), after a while I wanted to lose some weight and I decided to literally step up my game, now my bike is parked in the office bike racks from months, and I only use my feet to come to the office.

corysama 8y ago

There was a TED talk about regions with unusually high life expectancy. They identified 3 common themes amoung them: 1) Their lifestyle encouraged lots of low-key, continuous activity. You want a plate? Go get the footstool because grandma keeps her plates on a high shelf. 2) Their cultures encourage small meals and not eating more than you really need. Instilling your kids with “Finish your plate” guilt is a bad idea. 3) Their cultures encourage lots of socialization with lifelong groups of friends hanging out and doing things together daily forever.

eberkund 8y ago
Completely agree about the low-key continuous activity. I go to the gym partly because I feel like I need to balance out my otherwise sedentary day with an hour of intense workout. However I can see why someone who walks or bikes to work and is constantly on their feet might feel different.
- phicoh 8y ago
  It is worth noting that prolonged activities mostly burn fats, whereas short (90 minutes or less) high intensity mostly burn carbs. If you only burn carbs, it is hard to get rid of excess fat.
baud147258 8y ago
> 2) Instilling your kids with “Finish your plate” guilt is a bad idea. Or the parents could serve appropriate portions in the plate instead? Usually it's always the veggies which are last in the plate, but when the dessert arrives, there's suddenly lot of room left.
maury91 8y ago
I'm from one of those regions, you are right on point 1 and 3, but you are totally wrong on point 2. In Sardinia not finishing you plate is offensive, and you should always finish, not accepting a beer offered by a stranger is offensive and you have to accept and drink it. And we cook a LOT, a big difference I notice when coming to live in London, is that British eats a 1 course meal, while in Sardinia Lunch and Dinner are both 3 courses meal. And during festivals, holidays and weddings we step up our game, an usual wedding has something like 50 courses, where you eat from 1pm until 11pm. When we go to the beach we don't bring a sandwich, we bring meatballs, lasagna, cold pasta, cold rice a couple of watermelons, and enough food for eat an entire week. To say in small words, in Sardinia meals are extra large

whack 8y ago

The body of the article has some great suggestions, but the headline is clickbait. Lots of low-intensity activity is great for health of course. But if you only have 3 hours per week to exercise, spending those 3 hours at the gym doing high-intensity exercise, is far better than just taking a leisurely stroll. For people with busy lives, going to the gym provides the best ROI for your time. For an obvious illustration of this, you can see the research done on HIIT vs low-intensity exercises: http://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval-training-exercise/ http://time.com/4893161/hiit-high-intensity-interval-trainin...

sinatra 8y ago
> But if you only have 3 hours per week to exercise I think the point is that you don’t have only 3 hours in a week. You can bring physical activity in many other things you’re already doing. One minor example that I’m trying to focus on: I go for a walk when I take any phone calls.
- btrettel 8y ago
  Great suggestion. I often make calls if I am walking to get dinner. It's also a better use of time than just walking alone.

maym86 8y ago

Nothing is quantified in this article. Define healthiest? The framing of this is a nonsense way of saying get some daily exercise. Maybe "the healthiest people in the world" would be even helathier if they went to the gym too? There's a fad of prematurely optimizing for what's best (in diet too) when actually what would help most is getting more people to do something active more often. I would be much more supportive of this article if it didn't try to discourage some types of exercise as not being perfect but just explained that walking and biking to work is good for you too. Just do the exercise you enjoy and can keep doing regularly. Don't worry if it's not going to make you the healthiest person in the world. Just start with doing something regularly be it in the gym, HIT, walking or riding your bike to work.

dictum 8y ago

> Go ahead and cancel your membership The upside to the Daily Mail style is that, like a scammer intentionally aiming for the credulous, its total confidence and lack of misgivings helps weed out unintended audiences.

cryptozeus 8y ago

Got pay walled. Any other link ?

gwn7 8y ago

I agree with the article but the given recommendation is not practical for most people. Yes, there are so many things fundamentally wrong with our lives but people need to be practical. There is nothing wrong with gyms and high intensity exercise. They are indeed worse than the recommended form of exercise but implying that they are unnecessary is a bad advice for many. I think before giving this kind of general advice one needs to remember that not everybody has the luxury of adopting a lifestyle like the world's centenarians. "Quit your gyms!" advice won't be helpful at all for many. This somehow reminds me of the "the right thing" vs "worse is better" duality in software development. Note: I'm a health geek and hate gyms myself but for other reasons.

maury91 8y ago

I'm one of the people from one of the blue zones (Sardinia), on one side what he said is true, you don't need to go to the gym to be healthy, but by just merely walking a little bit more you will not achieve such a great benefit. All the elderly people I know have a lifestyle that can be considered weird, for example: - My grandfather goes every single day to farm his land, he spent 3-4 hours every day doing all kind of farm jobs, mostly potting plants and digging the land. Even if he is after his 70 he is stronger than me (and I don't consider myself weak). - My neighbour (an old lady around 110 years old, that lives alone and sometimes you say around 4 generations of daughters at her house (I usually see her in company of her daughter, her granddaughter, her grand-granddaughter and her grand-grand-granddaughter) wakes up every morning before the sun can raise and goes to the fields to cut wood and then she carries it on her back. - My other old neighbour wakes up every morning very early to, and goes to farm, he his nearly never at home and hangs out with the gang of old people (it's not a gangster, they simply walk around the village and they sit in every bench in every square) To summarise, I think the difference is the mentality, the people I know, old or young have all in common their absurd stubbornness, all these people loves their work, and even after going to pension they want to continue working (many says they will work until death), many of the elderlies weren't farmer before pension, but they choose to start doing it instead of doing nothing, essentially is people that don't like to lay on the couch and watch the TV, but instead going on the nature and pass their time there. Also many of these people have some unhealthy habits, like drinking insane doses of wine, beer, limoncello and mirto. There's a ton of other differences, but I don't want to write an article in this comment

Bjartr 8y ago
> essentially is people that don't like to lay on the couch and watch the TV, but instead going on the nature and pass their time there Have there been studies on what kind of percentage of the population exhibits a stubbornness against doing nothing? Is it inherent/genetic, or is it cultural (or how much is contributed by those factors). Those that oppose measures like a universal basic income often point to a tendency to do nothing and while I can agree that certainly there exists some portion of the population that that would describe, I don't know just how prevalent it is, or if it can be "fixed" socially.