12 ms·
Effect of exercise training for five years on all cause mortality
- unnouinceput 6y agoConclusion: exercise because is good for your health. What I wish I'll do: Take above advice. What I will do actually: file this and never open it again.
- meigwilym 6y ago10 minutes of walking every day can make a significant difference, and does not require much will power. But it's the gateway drug to more exercise.
- pmiller2 6y agoAnd, if you can't make yourself do a 10 minute walk every day, consider getting a dog, if your finances can support it. I walk an average of over an hour a day with my dog, and it's fun, because I have my dog with me. Normally, I probably wouldn't walk that much if I didn't have her.
- unnouinceput 6y agoFinances will support, space is something I lack. I do not agree to raise a dog in a limited apartment, a dog needs his own yard.
- pmiller2 6y agoA lot of shelters and rescue groups feel the same way. But, there are a lot of dogs who will get along just fine in an apartment. One surprising example would be greyhounds. Yes, they are racing dogs, but, they generally are only interested in running for a couple minutes a day. The rest of the time, they're gentle couch potatoes, who make ideal apartment dogs.
- adrianN 6y agoA dog doesn't need a yard, it needs someone to tire it out every day. A neglected dog in a yard is not significantly happier than a neglected dog in an apartment.
- Buttons840 6y agoThe dog that could be living in your apartment is currently in a cage somewhere and will be killed (we say "euthanized") soon. I don't say this to shame you or anyone into getting an animal. My only point is to argue that living in an apartment is not really so bad for an animal. If you're avoiding an animal for your own sanity while living in an apartment, that's fine, I do not fault you for it. If you're avoiding an animal for the animals sake, then I think the animal would prefer an apartment to a cage.
- pmiller2 6y agoThat is a very good point I failed to make. Before I adopted my dog, she was sharing a small room of around 100 square feet with another dog, and I don't think she ever got to spend any off leash time outside. Now, she has 10x the space, all to herself, and we go to the park every single day that it's practical to do so. She's undoubtedly happier than she was then; it's obvious just by looking at her. The shelter I adopted from is a no kill shelter, but, keep in mind that "no kill" really means "fixed capacity." If the no kill shelters are full, guess where all the stray animals will go? Here are some sad statistics from a 1997 survey of 1000 animal shelters by the American Humane Society: > In 1997, roughly 64 percent of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized — approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters. These animals may have been euthanized due to overcrowding, but may also have been sick, aggressive, injured or suffering from something else. > 56 percent of dogs and 71 percent of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized. More cats are euthanized than dogs because they are more likely to enter a shelter without any owner identification. > Only 15.8 percent of dogs and 2 percent of cats that enter animal shelters are reunited with their owners. 25 percent of dogs and 24 percent of cats that enter animal shelters are adopted. See http://americanhumane.org/fact-sheet/animal-shelter-euthanasia-2/ http://americanhumane.org/fact-sheet/animal-shelter-euthanas... And, as far as anecdata go, when my dog entered the shelter I adopted her from, she was pregnant with 12 puppies that were aborted. While I love puppies, I am glad they did that, for multiple reasons. Most important among them is that when we're destroying millions of animals a year, we don't need 12 more dogs in the shelter. But, secondarily, I am glad they did it, because if she had had the puppies, she would not be leaving that shelter for several weeks, which means I would have had a harder time adopting her. :)
- brlewis 6y agoAnd if you can't get a dog, play a game like Pokemon Go or Ingress.
- hackily 6y agoHighly recommended. I don't go outside much, but I started pokemon go during covid-19, and it gives me a reason to head outside on a brisk walk to put a pokemon in a gym, or do a raid everyday. They doubled the distance you can reach gyms, so I can stand safely on the other side of the street from the gym and still be able to raid.
- polka_haunts_us 6y agoWhat's the next level up, because I walk 20 minutes a day but apparently my drug tolerance is high.
- Jtsummers 6y agoStart jogging, if your knees and back can take it, and try to keep the same total time (so longer distance). I fixed my distance at the start of my fitness improvement effort (5km) and walked it (40-45 minutes initially), then started running sections until they were longer, and eventually the whole distance. Got my time consistently down to 30 minutes, and for a brief period down to 23-24 minutes.
- NalNezumi 6y agoThat's the gateway but the real problem is when you start to change habits, schedule and food preferences for maximum excersice effect. Now you are deep in the trench
- kyriakos 6y agoI can't understand what kind of lifestyle doesn't allow for a 10 minutes walk. If you do housework for half an hour you probably exercise more than that.
- pbhjpbhj 6y agoIt's not the allowance of time, it's the motivation (for me and probably 100s of millions of others??). I was walking 80 minutes a day prior to Covid lockdown, now I'm lucky to do that in a week. Principle change is motivation.
- jkhdigital 6y agoI don’t think you read the article... the conclusions are actually pretty nuanced, and only apply to older (70+) individuals.
- unnouinceput 6y agoYour thinking is wrong on this one. I did read it and I got those nuances just the same as you. My conclusion still stands.
- pontus 6y agoTo be clear, the study actually does not show any statistically significant effect of exercise on mortality rate compared to the control group (it shows an improvement, it's just not statistically significant). The verbatim conclusion they present is: "This study suggests that combined MICT and HIIT has no effect on all cause mortality compared with recommended physical activity levels. However, we observed a lower all cause mortality trend after HIIT compared with controls and MICT."
- tgb 6y agoBut also the control group is significantly physically active too.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoAnd the "High impact" is only interval training.
- zachm0 6y agoYep, from the article: "Control participants chose to perform more of their physical activity as HIIT than the physical activity undertaken by participants in the MICT group. This meant that the controls achieved an exercise dose at an intensity between the MICT and HIIT groups."
- asdffdsa 6y agoOr you can do 5 jumping jacks!
- krzat 6y agoCOVID basically forced me to start running (or go insane in home office), and it's been pretty great. For 4 weeks a week you are getting: - improved mental state - protection against covid - free calories to spend on food or weight loss - fresh air - better future health outcomes - time for podcasts - new hobby Overall, I highly recommend trying!
- scythmic_waves 6y agoSlightly OT: I'm not sure I've ever seen a "Visual Abstract" before and I kind of love it. You can pack way more information into the same space and in a much more digestible format than a purely text abstract.
- kamac 6y agoThe takeaway from this, if you're lazy like me: > In line with this, observational studies suggest that exercise has a statistically significant preventive effect on premature all cause mortality with active individuals showing up to a 72% lower risk of premature mortality from all causes compared with inactive individuals
- tgb 6y agoThat's a summary of other, prior research (and observational, this one is randomized).
- jkhdigital 6y ago—-> on the elderly. This study makes zeros claims about any other age group.
- matsemann 6y agoI was about to link a related news article I recently read, but realised it was the same study (done by my alma mater). One thing it also found was that they had a better quality of life, and those training together ended up being fond of the time spent together with new friends. The 4x4 protocol btw is a staple in Norwegian training, at all levels. 4x4 and "fartlek" and you are soon an elite athlete is almost the mantra.
- jkhdigital 6y agoOkay seems like nobody is RTFA... The average age of participants in the study was over 70, so these findings apply only to the elderly. And the conclusion is not that “exercise is good”; the authors were actually trying to figure out if HIIT or moderate exercise was better. TLDR: HIIT is better
- loeg 6y agoHIIT might be better for the elderly, but the result was not statistically significant.
- pmiller2 6y agoTwo things that stuck out to me after reading the abstract: * The control group wasn't "no exercise." It was "follow national guidelines for physical activity." * Median age of study participants was 72.8 years. Because of this, I'm not sure what this study actually means, other than "grandma should get more exercise." I suppose this is a fine study design, if you specifically want to study senior citizens, but it would be nice to have a much longer-term study on younger people.
- conistonwater 6y agoIt is perfectly reasonable for the control group to be following standard guidelines. In all medical trials, for example, the control group usually follows the current standard of care. Why does that stick out?
- pmiller2 6y agoMedical trials are generally placebo controlled, if they're any good.
- ksdale 6y agoIt sticks out at least in the US because "following standard guidelines" is not what most people do. Most people (at least in the US) hardly exercise at all, so a control groups that exercises 30 minutes a day is already a group that exercises a lot compared to the average person. I agree with you that its reasonable, but the study then teaches you about the relative merits of different kinds of exercise, rather than the effect of exercise compared to "no exercise" which is how people tend to think of a control group.
- solveit 6y agoYes, but I think the question motivating the study is "should we change standard guidelines?" and not "is exercise good?". Not least because exercise is very very good and rechecking that isn't a very high priority.
- mcguire 6y ago
- joshgel 6y agoWow what a disappointing result. Perhaps underpowered to detect what may only be a small change. Also perhaps some selection bias in that the participants that sign up for an Exercise Study may already be pretty fit. And we see some of that in the baseline characteristics.
- fwsgonzo 6y agoI don't think it was that disappointing. All it says it that the difference between elderly high-intensity and medium-intensity training is very little, and not statistically significant. Same with both combined compared to an elderly control group that is (I think) also physically active. If you were to compare these groups to physically inactive groups I'm sure you would have seen quite a big difference.
- joshgel 6y agoI'm firmly in the camp that exercise is extremely beneficial. Likely one of the most beneficial things one can do (with not smoking and eating a diet high in fruits/veggies low in processed carbs). We (society/physicians/etc) need tools to get people to exercise. This is more a study of how effective one of those tools might be (ie supervised exercise vs recommendations). If supervised exercise is no better than recommendations, I find that pretty disappointing. Because as we all know, recommendations don't work very well, or at least most people don't adhere to them.
- wing-_-nuts 6y ago>We (society/physicians/etc) need tools to get people to exercise. One simple thing is making sure our infrastructure makes it safe to do so. Living in the south, I can't tell you how many side walks just end. How many roads have no crosswalks. Don't even get me started on bike infrastructure! The car is king here, and I sincerely hope that ends some day.
- yamrzou 6y agoI recently watched a BBC Horizon documentary called "The truth about exercise" [1]. It argues that people do not respond the same way to exercise and that even 3 minutes of HIIT per week can make a significant difference. It features a research by Dr. Jamie Timmons which he presents here[2]. [1] https://archive.org/details/BBCHorizonCollection512Episodes/BBC+Horizon+-+s2012e02+-+The+Truth+About+Exercise.mkv https://archive.org/details/BBCHorizonCollection512Episodes/... [2] https://youtu.be/E42TQNWhW3w https://youtu.be/E42TQNWhW3w
- chmod600 6y agoI conjecture that exercise has a larger effect on quality than quantity of life.
- czbond 6y agoI don't know why you're being downvoted. Increased exercise helps me: sleep better, have more energy, and look better. That is quality to me.
- poxrud 6y agoYes they mention in the paper mental and physical improvements. In addition, the mental component continuous summary score was significantly higher in the HIIT group compared with control group (P=0.04) and MICT group (P=0.04) after five years (supplementary table S6).
- npsimons 6y agoNumber one thing to get me out of a depressive funk, or help get unstuck on a problem? Get up out of my office chair and get some GD exercise! Even a simple meditative walk can do wonders.
- meekrohprocess 6y agoIt's probably both. One big predictor of near-term all-cause mortality is the simple question, "can the person comfortably walk for a mile or two at a brisk pace?" (Barring existing mobility issues ofc) Exercise helps to keep your body less stressed in many ways during its normal day-to-day life. It's good for your immune system, your circulatory system, your digestive system, and even your brain. A few extra pounds probably won't cut your life short, but chronic heart disease or blood clots or being bedridden in old age definitely can.
- jesterpm 6y ago> Control participants chose to perform more of their physical activity as HIIT than the physical activity undertaken by participants in the MICT group. The implications of allowing the control group to self-select their activities from the guidelines. I wonder if they would have biased toward the HIIT activities (perceiving them to be better) simply because they were participating in the study. Would the outcome have been different if they were asked to maintain their existing activity levels or somehow replicate the normal activity mix of people following the guidance. Otherwise, it seems more useful to focus on the difference between the HIIT and MICT groups.
- stygiansonic 6y agoA lot of comments are claiming this study shows that exercise is good for your health. Though I generally agree with that premise, that is NOT what the results of this study show. The abstract and visual abstract clearly state this. - The RCT was done only on individuals aged 70-77 - Furthermore the results were not statistically significant at p < 0.05. You can see this in the visual abstract where the 95% CI overlaps with risk ratio = 1.0, where 1.0 means "no difference" between the groups. Note that the results being non-stat sig does not mean that there was no difference! It means that the difference, if present, was probably too small to detect given the power (number of participants) included in the study. This is important to understand! Furthermore, in the "Strengths and limitations of this study" they clearly outline some reasons why the results may have been non stat-sig, including: - "Firstly, participants in the control group had a high level of activity throughout the study, and many exercised using HIIT. This might have affected the study’s ability to detect statistically significant differences between groups." - "selection bias might have influenced our results, as participants were more active and had better overall health than non-included participants" Basically, even the "control" group looked like they had a good baseline level of activity, decreasing the activity level difference between that and the two treatment groups. My takeaway from this study is that in isolation, it doesn't provide much evidence for or against the effect of exercise, but taken together with other studies can be used for evidential value. The results can also be used to inform future studies. The authors clearly understood this when they stated in the main measure outcome: "An exploratory hypothesis was that HIIT lowers mortality more than MICT."
- perardi 6y agoFirstly, participants in the control group had a high level of activity throughout the study, and many exercised using HIIT. I absolutely get why they had to use a control group that was decently in shape, otherwise the effect size compared to the sedentary would probably have been so massive as to be comical and uninformative. But…where are they getting 75-year-olds who are doing HIIT? Is Norway full of septuagenarian gym rats and cross-country skiers?
- conistonwater 6y ago
- jcoq 6y agoThis article's title doesn't really reflect the study. It should be like "5 year all-cause mortality with HIIT vs MICT training in healthy, active adults aged 70+".
- thomascgalvin 6y agoThis study had three groups: - Control: followed the current Norwegian guidelines, which recommend 30 minutes of moderate level physical activity almost every day - High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT): Generally followed the same program as control, but two of the five sessions were instead a 10 minute warmup, followed by four four-minute intervals, working at 90% max heart rate - Moderate Intensity Continuous Training (MICT): Generally followed the same program as control, but two of the five sessions were instead a half hour of steady-state exercise, at about 70% max heart rate Conclusion: There was little to no difference in mortality between the control, HIIT, and MICT groups. I don't love this study design, because it isn't really testing HIIT (or MICT); it's testing what happens when 40% of your exercise is HIIT (or MICT). That being said, I think the most important takeaway is that exercise is good for you, and what that exercise looks like is almost completely unimportant. Do what you enjoy and can sustain. If you have ten minutes in the morning, do HIIT. If you have an hour after work and want to get out of the house, go jogging or ride a bike. Anything is better than nothing.
- tokamak-teapot 6y agoIt looks a bit like you’re quoting the conclusion of the study and saying there wasn’t much to conclude. But here is the actual conclusion, copied and pasted, in case people read your version and come away thinking it’s what the study actually concluded. “This study suggests that combined MICT and HIIT has no effect on all cause mortality compared with recommended physical activity levels. However, we observed a lower all cause mortality trend after HIIT compared with controls and MICT.” This is a scientific study, presumably posted because the poster believes we can read it and understand it. I’m not sure why it needs to have its conclusion rewritten and then some opinion based advice added.
- cblconfederate 6y agoI would have even thought it could be positive, due to the potential for injury
- jaggirs 6y agoCan someone explain to me what the title of this post means? The most literal way I can interpret it as is "Everyone that trained for five years died". I doubt that is what is really meant.
- ikeboy 6y agoAll cause mortality means the rate of deaths from all causes. You measure the effect of something else, in this case exercise, on this rate.
- jungletime 6y agoThere are many health problems that are mechanical failures. From fractured hip bones to plugged up arteries. Exercise is linked to building muscle and improving blood flow and lowering resting hear Rate. At this point the evidence is more overwhelming than smoking causing cancer. There is no good reason not to exercise. And the easiest exercise is just walking for an hour a day.
- kyriakos 6y agoWalking an hour a day is also extremely good for mental health, unless you are walking on a treadmill in front of a TV of course.
- ddmma 6y agoIf you wait a study to tell you this then might be a good idea to seriously consider your future options. Just do it
- nxmnxm99 6y agoExhibit A, why lifting is better for you than HIIT
- BobbyJo 6y agoI remember it being said in a few places that exercise doesn't actually affect all cause mortality until about 10 years after beginning a regimen. So, I'm not surprised by the non-statistically significant result after 5 years, especially in such an aged population.
- suprfnk 6y ago> I remember it being said in a few places that exercise doesn't actually affect all cause mortality until about 10 years after beginning a regimen. Huh. I would really like to see some sources on that, more than "I remember it being said..."
- BobbyJo 6y agoThe swedish study discussed here is what I was remembering: https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/never-too-late-ex https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/never-too-late-ex... They note that people who began exercising late in life didn't get much benefit to mortality risk by the 5 year benefit, but by the tenth year their risk was the same as the group that had always been active.
- robocat 6y agoWorking link: https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/never-too-late-exercise-helps-late-starters https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/never-too-late-ex... Edit: actually you need to google it to get to the un-paywalled article. “Most importantly, men who were highly physically active at age 50 were 32% less likely to die during the study than those who were least active; moderately active men enjoyed a smaller, but still respectable, 13% lower death rate than the least active gents.” “But the long-term nature of the Swedish study allowed the scientists to follow men who were sedentary at age 50 but who increased their exercise level between ages 50 and 60. For the first five years, the major result was disappointment, since these men continued to die at the same high rate as men who remained inactive. But over the next five years, the benefit kicked in; by 10 years of follow-up, the men who adopted exercise in middle age enjoyed the same low mortality rate as men who began before age 50. All in all, men who adopted exercise after 50 had a 49% lower death rate than the men who remained inactive, a benefit even greater than the 40% risk reduction experienced by men who quit smoking after age 50. And the protective effect of exercise remained significant even after the scientists adjusted their results for the impact of smoking, drinking, obesity, diabetes, cholesterol, blood pressure, and socioeconomic status.” “According to the Swedish study, men were classified as moderate exercisers if they simply took frequent walks or often went cycling for pleasure. And high-level exercise involved a minimum of just three hours of serious gardening or recreational sports a week. And in case you're tempted to cook up another excuse, you'll soon see that this important study does not stand alone.”
- hikerclimb 6y agoI hope lots of people die of coronavirus
- bnjmn 6y agoAlthough these results are not exactly impressive or compelling (they don't make me want to change my exercise habits), it's reassuring to see researchers go through with publishing underwhelming results, rather than cherry-picking only the interesting results and sitting on the rest, which is a major contributing factor to the crisis of confidence/replication in the social sciences. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking - https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-errors-1.14700 https://www.nature.com/news/scientific-method-statistical-er... - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/ - etc...
- tomerico 6y agoWhy do you say that the results aren't impressive? 49% reduction in all cause mortality when High intensity interval training is compared to moderate intensity continuous training seems like a very strong result.
- ardit33 6y ago"an absolute risk reduction of 1.7 percentage points was observed after HIIT (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 1.20) and an absolute increased risk of 1.2 percentage points after MICT (1.24, 0.73 to 2.10)." So, 1.7% vs 1.2% seems just above noise level. The OP is right, the numbers are not that impressive. We are not talking about reducing overall mortality by double digits... Summary: looks like exercising is good, and adding HIIT has an increasing effect of reducing mortality, but the overall effect is small.
- oarabbus_ 6y ago>Participants were randomised to two sessions weekly of high intensity interval training at about 90% of peak heart rate (HIIT, n=400), moderate intensity continuous training at about 70% of peak heart rate (MICT, n=387), or to follow the national guidelines for physical activity (n=780; control group); all for five years. I can't quite tell by your summary whether you are saying "exercising is good, but the overall effect on mortality is small", or "exercising is good, and the effect of adding HIIT to baseline exercise is small". You cannot make the former statement from this study as control group were not non-exercisers (and adherence was decent). The latter statement, does seem to be supported. Regarding exercise in general, the literature shows the mortality gap between exercisers and non-exercisers is absolutely massive.
- hinkley 6y agoI've heard it strenuously claimed from multiple sources that the most important exercises for the elderly are not strength-focused but balance focused. There's a path from falling to bacterial pneumonia that, as one person put it, means that "The death certificate says the cause of death is pneumonia, but the real cause of death was falling." I'm fuzzy on the degree to which HIIT would contribute to lower incidence of falling injuries. Meanwhile I have a large pool of anecdata about yoga and taichi, some of it first person (I have, in the last five years, tried very hard to break my own ankle on several occasions, but walked away without even a sprain).
- brlewis 6y agoWii Fit is good for balance. I hope mine still works in 3 or 4 decades.
- Spinnaker_ 6y agoWhat better way is there to improve balance than to get stronger? Isn't that what improving balance is: Strengthening the musculoskeletal system to support yourself? This is why the focus on cardio related exercise for the elderly has always confused me. I'd like to see this study done with a basic strength training program instead.
- hinkley 6y agoNo. Laying on a bench lifting weights does very little for proprioception, especially compared to exercises that have you shifting your weight continuously. It’s a bit hard to put into words, but as a concrete example, you try to step off a curb diagonally, and instead the inside edge of your shoe hits the top of the curb, twisting your ankle out from under you. The correct reaction is to take all of the weight off that foot, otherwise once you hit the gutter you’re gonna have a bad time. A young person might solve this by hopping forward, to get your legs in front of your center of gravity. Another option is sinking down on the back leg while you draw the twisted ankle and your CG up and back until you can lift the leg and try to place it a second time. Most of your time in the gym is either isolating a limb or putting symmetric loads on both. That teaches you nothing about not falling. One failure mode for old people is having their “knee give out”. Having experienced this myself now, I think it has very little to do with strength and more to do with twitchy motor cortex (in my case, possibly due to a prescription medicine). Highly, highly unpleasant. That same weight shifting trick kept me physically safe if not entirely emotionally so.
- rossdavidh 6y agoI agree that it is a good thing to publish results, even when they are underwhelming or unsurprising. The main thing that DID surprise me in this study, was that the control group did so much exercise. The effect seen was likely small because it was compared to a control group that did nearly as much exercise as the MICT and HICT groups. If they repeated this study in the U.S. instead of Norway, I think they would find a bigger effect.
- binarycodedhex 6y agoI've never been able to run a mile without stopping or under 10 minutes. I've had my heart cath'd and stress tested, nothing wrong there. Would the intensity of HIIT and endurance of cross-country cardio be useful for significantly increasing aerobic capacity to get to running a mile continuously?
- nradov 6y agoCross training won't hurt and it's recommended for runners to reduce the risk of overuse injuries while building aerobic capacity. But if your goal is to improve at distance running then you're going to have to run. Instead of grinding out a slow 11 minute mile try running at a 9 minute pace for a shorter distance. Then rest for a few minutes and repeat several times. Do that a few times per week and gradually increase the distance you run at the 9 minute per mile pace. Eventually you'll get to a full mile at your target pace. Also if you're overweight you're going to struggle with running and be at higher risk of injury. If that's your situation then stick to lower impact sports until you drop the extra weight, then ramp up the running.
- binarycodedhex 6y agoI was underweight and borderline anemic through early 20's and it didn't make a difference, but still huffed and puffed. I could do low intensity things like cycling for 10 hours a day, no problem, but jogging, swimming, or running would make my descending aorta vibrate my lower abdomen and maintain a typical hr around 120-140 bpm (resting bp was 100/50, now resting hr is 115 with bp 125/80). Trying to discontinue propranolol for endogenous? tachycardia with hypertension. I'm in the process of losing 40 lbs (17%, cut) and then rebuilding muscle mass.
- nradov 6y agoThere is something wrong with your cardiovascular system. Have you been screened for an abdominal aortic aneurysm, patent foramen ovals, or arteriovenous fistula? A resting heart rate of 115 is crazy high. Get a second opinion from another cardiologist. Ask for imaging studies, treadmill stress test, and a Holter monitor. Good luck.
- explodingman 6y agoDiscussion [1] indicates that the control group were energised into exercising about as much as the "moderate" (not HIIT) intervention group. This is not an uncommon problem in intervention trials in this area. Something is better than nothing. More is better than less. [1] (audio and transcript) https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/moderate-exercise-vs-high-intensity-interval-training/12758488(https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/moderate-exercise-vs-high-intensity-interval-training/12758488) https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/m...
- binarysolo 6y agoFor people who didn't read the abstract clearly: for old people, no noticeable differences in health benefits comparing HIIT to MICT to recommended physical activity. Other studies show that exercise is better than no exercise for old people. Obligatory favorite exercise article: https://www.theonion.com/new-study-finds-running-for-20-minutes-each-day-could-a-1819576755 https://www.theonion.com/new-study-finds-running-for-20-minu...
- redelbee 6y agoSerious questions for people who work on this kind of research or who have done so in the past: Why do we need this kind of research? Don’t we already have enough to tell us that exercising is good, and that exercising more is probably better? Ostensibly they were trying to compare the recommended levels of activity with high intensity and medium intensity exercise to see which was better, but would anything really change based on this research? Wouldn’t whatever resources that went toward this research be better put to use by getting more people to exercise instead of studying what’s “best” or whatever this is trying to do? I understand that doing and publishing research is key to some academic careers (which is questionable in its own right), is that what’s really driving all this? For reference, my view on the role of research in tenured/academic jobs is probably pretty close to the negative viewpoint in this article that was posted on HN a while back: https://reyammer.io/blog/2020/10/03/the-good-the-bad-and-the-bye-bye-why-i-left-my-tenured-academic-job/ https://reyammer.io/blog/2020/10/03/the-good-the-bad-and-the... What am I missing?
- Zebfross 6y agoHonestly I don’t care if my fitness helps me live longer. It improves my quality of life right now which is way more valuable.
- afrojack123 6y agoExercise is good for you but not for the reasons you think.