6 ms·

The article's title is somewhat misleading. The study emphasises the level of fitness rather than the regularity of exercise. [0] > Question: What is the asso

The article's title is somewhat misleading. The study emphasises the level of fitness rather than the regularity of exercise. [0] > Question: What is the association between cardiorespiratory fitness and long-term mortality? > Findings: In this cohort study of 122 007 consecutive patients undergoing exercise treadmill testing, cardiorespiratory fitness was inversely associated with all-cause mortality without an observed upper limit of benefit. Extreme cardiorespiratory fitness (≥2 SDs above the mean for age and sex) was associated with the lowest risk-adjusted all-cause mortality compared with all other performance groups. > Meaning: Cardiorespiratory fitness is a modifiable indicator of long-term mortality, and health care professionals should encourage patients to achieve and maintain high levels of fitness. [0]: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2707428?resultClick=3 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

Boxxed 8y ago
That's a little pedantic, even for HN, don't you think? "Oh, it's not the exercise that's important, it's the stuff that happens BECAUSE you exercise."
- umanwizard 8y ago
  It's not pedantic, it's a real point. It's not clear at all that the relationship between exercise and fitness is as simple as you claim. Clearly, if a given person exercises more, they will be more fit. But there are also many other factors, including genetics, influencing fitness.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  Also if you're body starts to fail due to diabetes or kidney disease your cardiorespiratory fitness drops as well.
- ec109685 8y ago
  Unhealthy people in general will do poorly at those tests. Even if you don’t exercise, but are active, you will do better than a sick person. The study’s benefit is that folks should get tested and if their fitness level is poor, figure out why. The conclusion isn’t, “I exercise and therefor i will live longer”
- ddebernardy 8y ago
  It's not pedantic at all. I'm ~40 and don't exercise at all, yet I'm still perfectly fit. I presume it's due to doing groceries by foot several times per week, having a standup desk, and carrying the kid around. Perhaps genes help too. But the point I'd like to get across is: going to the gym isn't the sine qua non of making you fit. You can get enough "exercise" by simply living without a car, standing, and walking.
  - shin_lao 8y ago
    I think you need to define perfectly fit. Can you do 10 pullups?
    - mr_toad 8y ago
      99% of the population can’t do 1 pull-up, let alone 10. Most of the people I go to the gym with would struggle with more than a few. Hell, even marines and rangers have lower fitness standards (3 and 6 dead hang chin ups respectively).
      - graeme 8y ago
        That's a gtoss misrepresentation of the marines' standards. The tables are here: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCBUL%206100%20DTD%2015DEC16.pdf?ver=2016-12-27-125044-450 https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCBUL%206100... 3 is for men over 51. And that's the bare minimum, not get kicked out of the marines threshold. To reach top rank scoring is more like 15-17 for most ages. Mid rank is about 11 or up. Maybe 99% of the population can't do a pullup, but I feel that's an overestimate. In any case, that says more about our overall societal weakness than anything else. What are your gym friends doing if they couldn't do more than a few? Are they strength training or just doing cardio? Serious question, I'm curious. With a few months training ar age 26 I was able to do 5 reps of my bodyweight + about 40 pounds IIRC. And now, even when I periodically stop strength training, I am rarely below 8-10 when I start again. Chin-ups are hard, but they're not that hard if you train them or do any activity that works those muscles.
    - paulcole 8y ago
- graeme 8y ago
  As someone who exercises, I didn't think the comment was pedantic at all. I thought yours was actually. A lot of people define exercise as either some sort of rigorous structured activity, or something that makes you sweat, or something that makes you huff and puff. A lot of resistance training my do none of those things, but still result in a high level of fitness, including cardiovascular. So, it was helpful to see what exactly the study was referring to. Conversely, a lot of people "exercise" regularly, but aren't particularly fit when measured against objective metrics.
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  Grip strength is also an excellent marker of longevity/imminent death - but this is probably not a result of exercise, and certainly not grip-strength exercise. Science is not assuming that what seems like a very reasonable guess is true, and questioning such assumptions must be "pedantic." Instead, we do the experiments and know one way or another. PS - one of the things that happens when most people exercise is more UV exposure as they walk, run or cycle: and previous studies have shown UV exposure to be more important for longevity than exercise per se.
- ec109685 8y ago
  Here’s another reason it isn’t pedantic. Without being precise, you get headlines like not exercising is worse for you than smoking: https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/12511EDC-D4E7-11E8-88FA-B2F4C449705B https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/12511EDC-D4E7-11E... “Smoking is bad, but sitting around doing nothing is even more deadly, study shows” That study didn’t show anything like that!
wild_preference 8y ago
How do you propose that someone attain a high degree of fitness without regular exercise? Would it be insufficient for a study to tell people to drink more water even though we know it's not the action of drinking water that helps us, but the cellular interaction with it once it's inside us? And even though people could connect saline bags directly to their nervous system? So, I'm wondering what you're clarifying.
- simcop2387 8y ago
  I think it's more that regular exercise isn't sufficient to actually have a high degree of fitness. If you exercise regularly but still over eat with a terrible diet then you're likely not going to actually get fit.
  - shijie 8y ago
    It’s true that the positive effects would be lessened, possibly. Anecdotally, however, I’ve seen several dozen professional athletes eat like trash while maintaining an elite level of fitness. Turns out the body is fairly good at efficient nutrient synthesis, having done it for millions of years in sub-optimal conditions.
- armada651 8y ago
  > How do you propose that someone attain a high degree of fitness without regular exercise? There are some personal factors involved, two people performing on equal level on the treadmill test does not imply they exercise with the same regularity. For example, I use my mountain bike for exercise, but on the treadmill I'll probably be beaten by the person that exercises by jogging even if we exercise with the same regularity.
ec109685 8y ago
I wonder how they know it is modifiable? Without splitting the population into “folks we told to exercise” and those who we did not, you can’t really know how successful such a program is. People that feel good and aren’t sick will be likely to exercise more, so there are confounding factors.

Boxxed 8y ago

That's a little pedantic, even for HN, don't you think? "Oh, it's not the exercise that's important, it's the stuff that happens BECAUSE you exercise."

umanwizard 8y ago
It's not pedantic, it's a real point. It's not clear at all that the relationship between exercise and fitness is as simple as you claim. Clearly, if a given person exercises more, they will be more fit. But there are also many other factors, including genetics, influencing fitness.
JamesBarney 8y ago
Also if you're body starts to fail due to diabetes or kidney disease your cardiorespiratory fitness drops as well.
ec109685 8y ago
Unhealthy people in general will do poorly at those tests. Even if you don’t exercise, but are active, you will do better than a sick person. The study’s benefit is that folks should get tested and if their fitness level is poor, figure out why. The conclusion isn’t, “I exercise and therefor i will live longer”
ddebernardy 8y ago
It's not pedantic at all. I'm ~40 and don't exercise at all, yet I'm still perfectly fit. I presume it's due to doing groceries by foot several times per week, having a standup desk, and carrying the kid around. Perhaps genes help too. But the point I'd like to get across is: going to the gym isn't the sine qua non of making you fit. You can get enough "exercise" by simply living without a car, standing, and walking.
- shin_lao 8y ago
  I think you need to define perfectly fit. Can you do 10 pullups?
  - mr_toad 8y ago
    99% of the population can’t do 1 pull-up, let alone 10. Most of the people I go to the gym with would struggle with more than a few. Hell, even marines and rangers have lower fitness standards (3 and 6 dead hang chin ups respectively).
    - graeme 8y ago
      That's a gtoss misrepresentation of the marines' standards. The tables are here: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCBUL%206100%20DTD%2015DEC16.pdf?ver=2016-12-27-125044-450 https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCBUL%206100... 3 is for men over 51. And that's the bare minimum, not get kicked out of the marines threshold. To reach top rank scoring is more like 15-17 for most ages. Mid rank is about 11 or up. Maybe 99% of the population can't do a pullup, but I feel that's an overestimate. In any case, that says more about our overall societal weakness than anything else. What are your gym friends doing if they couldn't do more than a few? Are they strength training or just doing cardio? Serious question, I'm curious. With a few months training ar age 26 I was able to do 5 reps of my bodyweight + about 40 pounds IIRC. And now, even when I periodically stop strength training, I am rarely below 8-10 when I start again. Chin-ups are hard, but they're not that hard if you train them or do any activity that works those muscles.
  - paulcole 8y ago
graeme 8y ago
As someone who exercises, I didn't think the comment was pedantic at all. I thought yours was actually. A lot of people define exercise as either some sort of rigorous structured activity, or something that makes you sweat, or something that makes you huff and puff. A lot of resistance training my do none of those things, but still result in a high level of fitness, including cardiovascular. So, it was helpful to see what exactly the study was referring to. Conversely, a lot of people "exercise" regularly, but aren't particularly fit when measured against objective metrics.
Nomentatus 8y ago
Grip strength is also an excellent marker of longevity/imminent death - but this is probably not a result of exercise, and certainly not grip-strength exercise. Science is not assuming that what seems like a very reasonable guess is true, and questioning such assumptions must be "pedantic." Instead, we do the experiments and know one way or another. PS - one of the things that happens when most people exercise is more UV exposure as they walk, run or cycle: and previous studies have shown UV exposure to be more important for longevity than exercise per se.
ec109685 8y ago
Here’s another reason it isn’t pedantic. Without being precise, you get headlines like not exercising is worse for you than smoking: https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/12511EDC-D4E7-11E8-88FA-B2F4C449705B https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/12511EDC-D4E7-11E... “Smoking is bad, but sitting around doing nothing is even more deadly, study shows” That study didn’t show anything like that!

wild_preference 8y ago

How do you propose that someone attain a high degree of fitness without regular exercise? Would it be insufficient for a study to tell people to drink more water even though we know it's not the action of drinking water that helps us, but the cellular interaction with it once it's inside us? And even though people could connect saline bags directly to their nervous system? So, I'm wondering what you're clarifying.

simcop2387 8y ago
I think it's more that regular exercise isn't sufficient to actually have a high degree of fitness. If you exercise regularly but still over eat with a terrible diet then you're likely not going to actually get fit.
- shijie 8y ago
  It’s true that the positive effects would be lessened, possibly. Anecdotally, however, I’ve seen several dozen professional athletes eat like trash while maintaining an elite level of fitness. Turns out the body is fairly good at efficient nutrient synthesis, having done it for millions of years in sub-optimal conditions.
armada651 8y ago
> How do you propose that someone attain a high degree of fitness without regular exercise? There are some personal factors involved, two people performing on equal level on the treadmill test does not imply they exercise with the same regularity. For example, I use my mountain bike for exercise, but on the treadmill I'll probably be beaten by the person that exercises by jogging even if we exercise with the same regularity.

ec109685 8y ago

I wonder how they know it is modifiable? Without splitting the population into “folks we told to exercise” and those who we did not, you can’t really know how successful such a program is. People that feel good and aren’t sick will be likely to exercise more, so there are confounding factors.