4 ms·

But there is a difference between need when it comes to endurance (so that we can tire an animal enough that we can catch it and eat it) and the need to benefit

by louthy 2y ago

But there is a difference between need when it comes to endurance (so that we can tire an animal enough that we can catch it and eat it) and the need to benefit from the physiological effects of movement. It isn’t a given that endurance exercise is good for us (I mean, it probably is, but no more good than any other form), it is a given that humans have good stamina because we needed to eat though, that’s surely the only real conclusion we can extract?

lm28469 2y ago
You're fighting millions of years of evolution here, you're definitely more adapted to walk a few hours per day than to sit in front of a computer. Your entire body was designed for something we don't do anymore, which we replaced by things it was never design to withstand (lack of exercise, bad diets, bad posture, &c.)
- louthy 2y ago
  I’m not fighting anything. You can’t prove that I need to walk more than two hours a day to stay healthy. You can’t prove that humans haven’t evolved, at all, over that period of 1 million years. Saying that we need a minimum of two hours walking per day is not based in any kind of fact at all. It is entirely assumption. Exercise, yes, exercise for two hours or more per day, who knows?
  - lm28469 2y ago
    All I know is that I follow my rules and I'm healthier than 99% of people I meet
    - louthy 2y ago
      > I'm healthier than 99% of people I meet Sure. At least we now have a sample size of 1 to extrapolate from.
      - lm28469 2y ago
        The sample size is the western world, and we're at 70% of obese/overweight so clearly seating on your ass all day long isn't good. The average american walks something like 3k steps per day and its their sole activity. The #1 death cause in the west is directly caused by lack of exercise. How can people be in such denial ? If you have a full time desk job there aren't enough time in a day for you to over exercise, every single second you'll spend doing anything other than seating/laying down will b an improvement > You can't prove that ... Dude, open your eyes, look around you, seeing 70%+ of people having a beer belly at 30 isn't normal, it isn't healthy, most people don't even hit the bare minimum recommendations, I don't need a mathematical proof, it's all here in front of us
- detourdog 2y ago
  I'm starting to think that mental health is the real issue in modern society. All the rewards described by exercise may be available through good mental health. I think we maybe to focused on the physical symptoms.
keybored 2y ago
Say you’re designing a four-legged, cross-country robot for reconnaissance, like I’m sure some militaries have. One thing that comes up is that all the joints need to be constantly lubricated by movement or else they will stiffen and become unusable. This turns out to not be a problem because the robot will be used for continual movement while it is in use. So there is no need to worry about it: it would be wasted effort. Same with our bodies. The potential downsides of being biomechanically completely immobile for hours at a time (something like a deep squat is not completely immobile) have not been an issue for most of history. The way I (intuitively) understand it is that we’ve been selected through generations to deal with certain situations well. Like endurance running. But when we get thrown into novel in the evolutionary sense situations, all bets are off. And it turns out that things work worse. For perhaps all kinds of possible reasons: maybe the baseline metabolism that hunter-gatherers had 20,000 years just because of their exact kind of activity levels turned out to be optimal for all kinds of biological functions as a sort of side effect.[1] Another potential example is sleeping. In my experience I feel better in my muscles after sleeping on a hard surface. If you try to lay on your side on the floor you will feel like you are either stretching or massaging your muscles, or both. And maybe this low-intensity impact on the muscles throughout the night is necessary for some biological process? Contrast that with memory foam mattresses. Now if we were “designed” intentionally (tens of thousands of years ago), the designer would not have to worry about the biological implications of our bodies staying almost still on a soft surface for hours at a time. The best we would have is the ground, ranging from a soft, grassy meadow to just hard and sandy. It’s like our bodies are constantly are subjected to conditions that no process (evolution) ever had to deal with (on an evolutionary scale). [1] Now it could be that if we both undershot and overshot this baseline we could get in trouble. But it seems hard for most people to overshoot for some reason.

by louthy 2y ago

lm28469 2y ago

You're fighting millions of years of evolution here, you're definitely more adapted to walk a few hours per day than to sit in front of a computer. Your entire body was designed for something we don't do anymore, which we replaced by things it was never design to withstand (lack of exercise, bad diets, bad posture, &c.)

louthy 2y ago
I’m not fighting anything. You can’t prove that I need to walk more than two hours a day to stay healthy. You can’t prove that humans haven’t evolved, at all, over that period of 1 million years. Saying that we need a minimum of two hours walking per day is not based in any kind of fact at all. It is entirely assumption. Exercise, yes, exercise for two hours or more per day, who knows?
- lm28469 2y ago
  All I know is that I follow my rules and I'm healthier than 99% of people I meet
  - louthy 2y ago
    > I'm healthier than 99% of people I meet Sure. At least we now have a sample size of 1 to extrapolate from.
    - lm28469 2y ago
      The sample size is the western world, and we're at 70% of obese/overweight so clearly seating on your ass all day long isn't good. The average american walks something like 3k steps per day and its their sole activity. The #1 death cause in the west is directly caused by lack of exercise. How can people be in such denial ? If you have a full time desk job there aren't enough time in a day for you to over exercise, every single second you'll spend doing anything other than seating/laying down will b an improvement > You can't prove that ... Dude, open your eyes, look around you, seeing 70%+ of people having a beer belly at 30 isn't normal, it isn't healthy, most people don't even hit the bare minimum recommendations, I don't need a mathematical proof, it's all here in front of us
detourdog 2y ago
I'm starting to think that mental health is the real issue in modern society. All the rewards described by exercise may be available through good mental health. I think we maybe to focused on the physical symptoms.

keybored 2y ago

Say you’re designing a four-legged, cross-country robot for reconnaissance, like I’m sure some militaries have. One thing that comes up is that all the joints need to be constantly lubricated by movement or else they will stiffen and become unusable. This turns out to not be a problem because the robot will be used for continual movement while it is in use. So there is no need to worry about it: it would be wasted effort. Same with our bodies. The potential downsides of being biomechanically completely immobile for hours at a time (something like a deep squat is not completely immobile) have not been an issue for most of history. The way I (intuitively) understand it is that we’ve been selected through generations to deal with certain situations well. Like endurance running. But when we get thrown into novel in the evolutionary sense situations, all bets are off. And it turns out that things work worse. For perhaps all kinds of possible reasons: maybe the baseline metabolism that hunter-gatherers had 20,000 years just because of their exact kind of activity levels turned out to be optimal for all kinds of biological functions as a sort of side effect.[1] Another potential example is sleeping. In my experience I feel better in my muscles after sleeping on a hard surface. If you try to lay on your side on the floor you will feel like you are either stretching or massaging your muscles, or both. And maybe this low-intensity impact on the muscles throughout the night is necessary for some biological process? Contrast that with memory foam mattresses. Now if we were “designed” intentionally (tens of thousands of years ago), the designer would not have to worry about the biological implications of our bodies staying almost still on a soft surface for hours at a time. The best we would have is the ground, ranging from a soft, grassy meadow to just hard and sandy. It’s like our bodies are constantly are subjected to conditions that no process (evolution) ever had to deal with (on an evolutionary scale). [1] Now it could be that if we both undershot and overshot this baseline we could get in trouble. But it seems hard for most people to overshoot for some reason.