6 ms·

Doing more than 40 push-ups shows you’re 96% less likely to get a heart attack

72 points by kiddz 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
skookumchuck 8y ago
I'd expect that 40 push-ups are a proxy for good cardiovascular health rather than a cause of it. I.e. practicing push-ups in isolation is unlikely to improve cardiovascular health by itself.
- keithnz 8y ago
  hard to tell from the description of the study, it was done on firefighters, I would have though most would have reasonable cardio, I'm not sure if they did anything to isolate an overall lack of fitness from pushups
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    > I would have though most would have reasonable cardio I don't know if there are any national standards. But I'm under the impression that at most places there is some baseline cardio component to the fitness test, but that the upper body strength standards are much more demanding.
- solarmist 8y ago
  Sure it is, IF you also literally make it a cardiovascular test. "metronome set at 80 beats per minute ... until the participant reached 80, missed 3 or more beats of the metronome, or stopped"
Alex3917 8y ago
99% of people who can't do 40 push-ups are going to fail because they don't have the strength. Firefighters are probably one of the only demographics where you are going to get a non-trivial percentage who have the strength but not the cardiovascular health required.
- leobabauta 8y ago
  But the study also measured cardiovascular fitness via treadmill and didn't find the same correlation.
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    I mean it's not surprising that, in firefighters, pushups would be a better predictor of cardiovascular health than a VO2 max estimation. For the treadmill test, they cut participants off at 85% of their predicted max heart rate. Whereas with 40 push-ups you're pretty much guaranteed to be at your actual max heart rate after the first 10 or 15. In other words, push-ups are probably a better measure of cardiovascular fitness than the treadmill test, but only for the tiny percentage of the population who isn't limited by strength.
dmckeon 8y ago
Most firefighters in the US face a significant physical test to become a firefighter - example: https://nationaltestingnetwork.com/publicsafetyjobs/cpat_info.cfm https://nationaltestingnetwork.com/publicsafetyjobs/cpat_inf...
foobaw 8y ago
I bet they could say the same about 20+ pull-ups (which is more difficult than 40 push-ups based on anecdotal evidence). Not too interesting of a study in that sense.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kyriakos 8y ago
Isn't it generally more likely for someone who can do 40 push ups to be also living a more active life? I mean the ability to complete 40 push ups could be a result of exercising in general.
- solarmist 8y ago
  "metronome set at 80 beats per minute ... until the participant reached 80, missed 3 or more beats of the metronome, or stopped" To hit this top group that gives you less than 33 seconds to hit 41. You're not gonna hit those numbers just by exercising in general.
  - kyriakos 8y ago
    But someone with such a good performance in push ups is more likely to be more active in general.
paultopia 8y ago
This study smells funny to me. Why did they divide pushup numbers into groups of 10 and test there, rather than use a continuous measure? I sense multiple comparisons/researcher degrees of freedom problems.
- solarmist 8y ago
  Considering how the test was actually run I feel like it's a nearly meaningless test. The bar they set was extremely high once you read the details. I used to be able to do 40+ push ups, but at no where near the pace that the researchers required.
  - yosito 8y ago
    I find I can easily bust out 40 pushups at that rate, but if I try to go slower, it's harder to reach 40.
solarmist 8y ago
Better summary "if you can do a push-up sprint and complete 41 pushups in less than 33 seconds without pausing you're in pretty good shape and btw you're 96% less likely to get heart disease in the next 10 years than someone that can't keep that pace up for even 10 pushups." The most important sentence. "For push-ups, the firefighter was instructed to begin push-ups in time with a metronome set at 80 beats per minute. Clinic staff counted the number of push-ups completed until the participant reached 80, missed 3 or more beats of the metronome, or stopped owing to exhaustion or other symptoms (dizziness, lightheadedness, chest pain, or shortness of breath)." This was a combined strength/cardiovascular test. You had to book it. Only the firefighters that
- solarmist 8y ago
  "metronome set at 80 beats per minute ... until the participant reached 80, missed 3 or more beats of the metronome, or stopped" This is literally a push-up sprint. For comparison the US Army requires 42 pushups over 2 minutes (120 seconds) with any amount of pauses (to meet minimum standards) and maxes out at 71 push ups in 2 minutes. The people I knew who were maxing out their PT tests weren't hitting anywhere near this pace and I suspect only a handful of them could.
  - Ntrails 8y ago
    I've never even tried to do pushups at that sort of pace, i was always taught that the lower should be slow/controlled and the raise fast/explosive. It really does sound like something you would need to train pretty specifically for to complete when the reality is that just being fit is the metric for lower risk of heart disease
  - tgb 8y ago
    The other detail is what they counted as a pushup. My understanding is the military is pretty strict and most gym-goers aren't. Having your arms out perpendicular to torso is noticeably easier than tucking then in towards your chest and there's a range of places one might stop at. At that pace, I think you'd be doing doing fairly shallow pushups. Or maybe I'm just making excuses for not being able to do this.
known 8y ago
I think the type of oil we consume also makes a difference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola_oil#Comparison_to_other_vegetable_oils https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola_oil#Comparison_to_other... in https://lifeinthefastlane.com/ccc/cardiovascular-performance-assessment/ https://lifeinthefastlane.com/ccc/cardiovascular-performance...
audiometry 8y ago
Got to thirty-eight before I got total lactic burn in my biceps and deltoids. Then I got three more ticks and failed.
- brokenmachine 8y ago
  Better get your will in order. :-)
- groestl 8y ago
  You probably mean triceps?
  - audiometry 8y ago
    Strangely, no. Was the biceps, not triceps.
kerng 8y ago
Worth mentioning that all participants were firefighters - so not randomly selected individuals with variety of jobs.
daniel5678 8y ago
Participants in the highest pushups-completed group were younger, weighed less, had lower blood pressure, and were likely to be non-smoking compared to the two lowest groups. For a person who is 5ft10in, the BMI comparison in pounds would be 187lbs avg for the highest group vs 231 lbs, 211 lbs avg for the two lowest groups. Look at the details from Table 1 in the Study (go to https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2724778 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle..., on the right hand side, click on 'Figures and Tables', then click on the 'View Large' link for Table 1): BMI = Body Mass Index, BP = blood pressure, SD = Standard Deviation Mean Avg Values for the two lowest groups of pushups (0-10, 11-20): Age: 48.4 (SD=10.1), 45.1 (SD=8.6) BMI: 33.1 (SD=5.8) , 30.3 (SD=4.9) BP: 136.9/89.4 , 129.96/86.5 Smokers (Prev & Current): 54.7%, 58.8% Value for the highest group of pushups (41+): Age: 35.1 (SD=7.1) BMI: 26.8 (SD=2.9) BP: 125.2/84 Smokers (Prev & Current): 30.9% from https://www.bmi3d.com/table.html https://www.bmi3d.com/table.html BMI: 25-29.9: - overweight, >= 30: obese from https://www.heart.org/-/media/data-import/downloadables/pe-abh-what-is-high-blood-pressure-ucm_300310.pdf https://www.heart.org/-/media/data-import/downloadables/pe-a... BP: high blood pressure = 1st number >= 130 or 2nd number >= 80
- groestl 8y ago
  Wait, this means that all groups had high blood pressure? (2nd number >= 80)
zeroname 8y ago
I don't have training to make a formal argument, but this has got to be bullshit. They take the few people that had some form of heart disease (37 out of 1104 over ten years) and noted that none of them except one could do 40 pushups. By some magic, this is translated into a 96% reduction in chance of a heart attack. If that's really the reasoning, could I not just pick any metric (i.e. words typed per minute over 120, or IQ over 130) which is likely to eliminate almost all of the participants and conclude that it is reducing risk of heart disease? Am I missing something? Is this kind of reasoning not complete bogus?
- maxander 8y ago
  That's not how this sort of analysis is done. They separated people by push-up capacity, and compared the rate of heart disease in the low-capacity group versus the high-capacity group; those rates were 36 "cardiovascular events" for the 948 low-capacity guys (so, 3.7% of them), and 1 for the 155 high-capacity guys (0.6% of them.) I know which group I'd rather be in. It is true that, with the small number of events, the precise "96% reduction" number shouldn't be taken too seriously- the study notes that the 95% confidence interval is 99% to 64%; essentially, there's a one-in-twenty chance that it's a 99% reduction, or likewise that it's only a 64% reduction. Science never grants absolute uncertainties- but sadly, that part never makes it into the news story.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    Thank you for the explanation, that makes a lot more sense.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gpjanik 8y ago
This study shows that people with definitely healthy heart are less likely to suffer from heart attack than ones who most likely don't have a healthy one. I ncre di ble.

72 points by kiddz 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

I'd expect that 40 push-ups are a proxy for good cardiovascular health rather than a cause of it. I.e. practicing push-ups in isolation is unlikely to improve cardiovascular health by itself.

keithnz 8y ago
hard to tell from the description of the study, it was done on firefighters, I would have though most would have reasonable cardio, I'm not sure if they did anything to isolate an overall lack of fitness from pushups
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > I would have though most would have reasonable cardio I don't know if there are any national standards. But I'm under the impression that at most places there is some baseline cardio component to the fitness test, but that the upper body strength standards are much more demanding.
solarmist 8y ago
Sure it is, IF you also literally make it a cardiovascular test. "metronome set at 80 beats per minute ... until the participant reached 80, missed 3 or more beats of the metronome, or stopped"

Alex3917 8y ago

99% of people who can't do 40 push-ups are going to fail because they don't have the strength. Firefighters are probably one of the only demographics where you are going to get a non-trivial percentage who have the strength but not the cardiovascular health required.

leobabauta 8y ago
But the study also measured cardiovascular fitness via treadmill and didn't find the same correlation.
- Alex3917 8y ago
  I mean it's not surprising that, in firefighters, pushups would be a better predictor of cardiovascular health than a VO2 max estimation. For the treadmill test, they cut participants off at 85% of their predicted max heart rate. Whereas with 40 push-ups you're pretty much guaranteed to be at your actual max heart rate after the first 10 or 15. In other words, push-ups are probably a better measure of cardiovascular fitness than the treadmill test, but only for the tiny percentage of the population who isn't limited by strength.

dmckeon 8y ago

Most firefighters in the US face a significant physical test to become a firefighter - example: https://nationaltestingnetwork.com/publicsafetyjobs/cpat_info.cfm https://nationaltestingnetwork.com/publicsafetyjobs/cpat_inf...

foobaw 8y ago

I bet they could say the same about 20+ pull-ups (which is more difficult than 40 push-ups based on anecdotal evidence). Not too interesting of a study in that sense.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

kyriakos 8y ago

Isn't it generally more likely for someone who can do 40 push ups to be also living a more active life? I mean the ability to complete 40 push ups could be a result of exercising in general.

solarmist 8y ago
"metronome set at 80 beats per minute ... until the participant reached 80, missed 3 or more beats of the metronome, or stopped" To hit this top group that gives you less than 33 seconds to hit 41. You're not gonna hit those numbers just by exercising in general.
- kyriakos 8y ago
  But someone with such a good performance in push ups is more likely to be more active in general.

paultopia 8y ago

This study smells funny to me. Why did they divide pushup numbers into groups of 10 and test there, rather than use a continuous measure? I sense multiple comparisons/researcher degrees of freedom problems.

solarmist 8y ago
Considering how the test was actually run I feel like it's a nearly meaningless test. The bar they set was extremely high once you read the details. I used to be able to do 40+ push ups, but at no where near the pace that the researchers required.
- yosito 8y ago
  I find I can easily bust out 40 pushups at that rate, but if I try to go slower, it's harder to reach 40.

solarmist 8y ago

Better summary "if you can do a push-up sprint and complete 41 pushups in less than 33 seconds without pausing you're in pretty good shape and btw you're 96% less likely to get heart disease in the next 10 years than someone that can't keep that pace up for even 10 pushups." The most important sentence. "For push-ups, the firefighter was instructed to begin push-ups in time with a metronome set at 80 beats per minute. Clinic staff counted the number of push-ups completed until the participant reached 80, missed 3 or more beats of the metronome, or stopped owing to exhaustion or other symptoms (dizziness, lightheadedness, chest pain, or shortness of breath)." This was a combined strength/cardiovascular test. You had to book it. Only the firefighters that

solarmist 8y ago
"metronome set at 80 beats per minute ... until the participant reached 80, missed 3 or more beats of the metronome, or stopped" This is literally a push-up sprint. For comparison the US Army requires 42 pushups over 2 minutes (120 seconds) with any amount of pauses (to meet minimum standards) and maxes out at 71 push ups in 2 minutes. The people I knew who were maxing out their PT tests weren't hitting anywhere near this pace and I suspect only a handful of them could.
- Ntrails 8y ago
  I've never even tried to do pushups at that sort of pace, i was always taught that the lower should be slow/controlled and the raise fast/explosive. It really does sound like something you would need to train pretty specifically for to complete when the reality is that just being fit is the metric for lower risk of heart disease
- tgb 8y ago
  The other detail is what they counted as a pushup. My understanding is the military is pretty strict and most gym-goers aren't. Having your arms out perpendicular to torso is noticeably easier than tucking then in towards your chest and there's a range of places one might stop at. At that pace, I think you'd be doing doing fairly shallow pushups. Or maybe I'm just making excuses for not being able to do this.

known 8y ago

I think the type of oil we consume also makes a difference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola_oil#Comparison_to_other_vegetable_oils https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola_oil#Comparison_to_other... in https://lifeinthefastlane.com/ccc/cardiovascular-performance-assessment/ https://lifeinthefastlane.com/ccc/cardiovascular-performance...

audiometry 8y ago

Got to thirty-eight before I got total lactic burn in my biceps and deltoids. Then I got three more ticks and failed.

brokenmachine 8y ago
Better get your will in order. :-)
groestl 8y ago
You probably mean triceps?
- audiometry 8y ago
  Strangely, no. Was the biceps, not triceps.

kerng 8y ago

Worth mentioning that all participants were firefighters - so not randomly selected individuals with variety of jobs.

daniel5678 8y ago

Participants in the highest pushups-completed group were younger, weighed less, had lower blood pressure, and were likely to be non-smoking compared to the two lowest groups. For a person who is 5ft10in, the BMI comparison in pounds would be 187lbs avg for the highest group vs 231 lbs, 211 lbs avg for the two lowest groups. Look at the details from Table 1 in the Study (go to https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2724778 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle..., on the right hand side, click on 'Figures and Tables', then click on the 'View Large' link for Table 1): BMI = Body Mass Index, BP = blood pressure, SD = Standard Deviation Mean Avg Values for the two lowest groups of pushups (0-10, 11-20): Age: 48.4 (SD=10.1), 45.1 (SD=8.6) BMI: 33.1 (SD=5.8) , 30.3 (SD=4.9) BP: 136.9/89.4 , 129.96/86.5 Smokers (Prev & Current): 54.7%, 58.8% Value for the highest group of pushups (41+): Age: 35.1 (SD=7.1) BMI: 26.8 (SD=2.9) BP: 125.2/84 Smokers (Prev & Current): 30.9% from https://www.bmi3d.com/table.html https://www.bmi3d.com/table.html BMI: 25-29.9: - overweight, >= 30: obese from https://www.heart.org/-/media/data-import/downloadables/pe-abh-what-is-high-blood-pressure-ucm_300310.pdf https://www.heart.org/-/media/data-import/downloadables/pe-a... BP: high blood pressure = 1st number >= 130 or 2nd number >= 80

groestl 8y ago
Wait, this means that all groups had high blood pressure? (2nd number >= 80)

zeroname 8y ago

I don't have training to make a formal argument, but this has got to be bullshit. They take the few people that had some form of heart disease (37 out of 1104 over ten years) and noted that none of them except one could do 40 pushups. By some magic, this is translated into a 96% reduction in chance of a heart attack. If that's really the reasoning, could I not just pick any metric (i.e. words typed per minute over 120, or IQ over 130) which is likely to eliminate almost all of the participants and conclude that it is reducing risk of heart disease? Am I missing something? Is this kind of reasoning not complete bogus?

maxander 8y ago
That's not how this sort of analysis is done. They separated people by push-up capacity, and compared the rate of heart disease in the low-capacity group versus the high-capacity group; those rates were 36 "cardiovascular events" for the 948 low-capacity guys (so, 3.7% of them), and 1 for the 155 high-capacity guys (0.6% of them.) I know which group I'd rather be in. It is true that, with the small number of events, the precise "96% reduction" number shouldn't be taken too seriously- the study notes that the 95% confidence interval is 99% to 64%; essentially, there's a one-in-twenty chance that it's a 99% reduction, or likewise that it's only a 64% reduction. Science never grants absolute uncertainties- but sadly, that part never makes it into the news story.
- zeroname 8y ago
  Thank you for the explanation, that makes a lot more sense.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gpjanik 8y ago

This study shows that people with definitely healthy heart are less likely to suffer from heart attack than ones who most likely don't have a healthy one. I ncre di ble.