4 ms·

>We can at least all agree on the definition of exercise Is it something that increases your heart rate? Surely playing video games or watching a scary movie i

>We can at least all agree on the definition of exercise Is it something that increases your heart rate? Surely playing video games or watching a scary movie is not exercise. Does it require one to walk or run around, i.e. ambulation of the lower limbs? Sit-ups and push-ups are probably exercise but don't require this. Can you make empirical claims about exercise when one person is deadlifting 350lbs and the other is running 10 miles a day?

manmal 7y ago
Physical exercise I would define as moving a body part.
root_axis 7y ago
Here's the dictionary definition I think is relevant to the discussion: bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness So video games and scary movies wouldn't count whereas sit-ups and push-ups would. Science can tell us the types of "bodily exertion" that contribute to "developing and maintaining physical fitness", that's how we can know what counts and what doesn't. > Can you make empirical claims about exercise when one person is deadlifting 350lbs and the other is running 10 miles a day? If you control for diet you absolutely can.
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  >bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness I don't think I agree with that definition of exercise. Bodily exertion for any other sake (running from a wild animal, from a threatening person, towards an individual in need of help etc) is still exercise. There is not a requirement that it must be for the sake of developing fitness. >If you control for diet you absolutely can. Well, no, that's not quite true. From my examples above, distance running is a form of cardiovascular exercise which has benefits such as stimulating the release of chemicals like BDNF, which tend have positive neurological effects. There are, obviously, also significant cardiovascular benefits - increased VO2 max, lower resting heartrate, etc. On the other hand, deadlifting heavy weights results in major growth of the musculoskeletal system, bone density, and other benefits, but causes little benefit to cardiovasculr or neurological function. Cardio and strength training are two entirely different beasts in the types of empirical claims you can make about the benefits they bring.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > I don't think I agree with that definition of exercise. I don't see a compelling reason to dispense with a dictionary definition > There is not a requirement that it must be for the sake of developing fitness. It's not an exhaustive definition, but it is practical one, it's also unambiguous in its meaning, and applies to discussions about medical outcomes. Escaping from a wild animal is technically exercise but it's not really what the word is meant to convey. If you spent a day in the woods escaping from a wild bear, when you arrived home and someone asked you "what did you do today", you wouldn't say "I was out exercising" because that's just not how the word is used. > Well, no, that's not quite true. Yes it is true. We could make predictions about weight and muscle mass over time.

manmal 7y ago

Physical exercise I would define as moving a body part.

root_axis 7y ago

Here's the dictionary definition I think is relevant to the discussion: bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness So video games and scary movies wouldn't count whereas sit-ups and push-ups would. Science can tell us the types of "bodily exertion" that contribute to "developing and maintaining physical fitness", that's how we can know what counts and what doesn't. > Can you make empirical claims about exercise when one person is deadlifting 350lbs and the other is running 10 miles a day? If you control for diet you absolutely can.

oarabbus_ 7y ago
>bodily exertion for the sake of developing and maintaining physical fitness I don't think I agree with that definition of exercise. Bodily exertion for any other sake (running from a wild animal, from a threatening person, towards an individual in need of help etc) is still exercise. There is not a requirement that it must be for the sake of developing fitness. >If you control for diet you absolutely can. Well, no, that's not quite true. From my examples above, distance running is a form of cardiovascular exercise which has benefits such as stimulating the release of chemicals like BDNF, which tend have positive neurological effects. There are, obviously, also significant cardiovascular benefits - increased VO2 max, lower resting heartrate, etc. On the other hand, deadlifting heavy weights results in major growth of the musculoskeletal system, bone density, and other benefits, but causes little benefit to cardiovasculr or neurological function. Cardio and strength training are two entirely different beasts in the types of empirical claims you can make about the benefits they bring.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > I don't think I agree with that definition of exercise. I don't see a compelling reason to dispense with a dictionary definition > There is not a requirement that it must be for the sake of developing fitness. It's not an exhaustive definition, but it is practical one, it's also unambiguous in its meaning, and applies to discussions about medical outcomes. Escaping from a wild animal is technically exercise but it's not really what the word is meant to convey. If you spent a day in the woods escaping from a wild bear, when you arrived home and someone asked you "what did you do today", you wouldn't say "I was out exercising" because that's just not how the word is used. > Well, no, that's not quite true. Yes it is true. We could make predictions about weight and muscle mass over time.