5 ms·

You think exercise is "not that important in the grand scheme of things"? I urge you to do a bit of research on the topic, if you care about living a long and h

by mvdtnz 1y ago

You think exercise is "not that important in the grand scheme of things"? I urge you to do a bit of research on the topic, if you care about living a long and healthy life.

bb88 1y ago
If you think it's important for you, awesome. I personally think nuclear proliferation is a more important issue for the world than if I lose weight or not. And that's okay for me, and it should be okay for you, too.
- mvdtnz 1y ago
  I didn't say anything about losing weight.
- chemicalnovae 1y ago
  The parent said exercise though right, not weight loss? Exercise can/does lead to weight loss but it's certainly not the only benefit and might not even be the most important one.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  > I personally think nuclear proliferation is a more important issue for the world than if I lose weight or not. That's a bad comparison though. A better one would be the effects that you losing weight (or getting in shape or whatever) would have on your life vs the effects that nuclear proliferation would have on your life. Or the effects that globally eliminating obesity would have on life expectancy vs the effects that solving proliferation would have on life expectancy.
  - bb88 1y ago
    I completely disagree with you, as is my right. And you can disagree with me, and that's okay. I absolutely, truly believe nuclear proliferation is more dangerous than carbs. Fight me. The problem with your argument are the words, "you" and "your". You are making the mistake that pj50c is exactly arguing against. People arguing in effect, that "__you__ should do something." "If only __you__ understood...." "If only __you__ could control your lizard brain telling you you're hungry...." Those are your beliefs. They are not mine. And this is what people talk about when respecting "boundaries". I'm not saying you can't have you're opinion. And you can say, "I believe x, y, and z. And here's why...." And I'd be fine with that. In fact, I'd probably be more open to listening to you.
    - tbrownaw 1y ago
      No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that of course comparing the effects of Intervention A on one person vs the effects of Intervention B on everyone will give a predetermined result. And that a proper comparison must either have an individual on both sides, or the whole group on both sides.
      - bb88 1y ago
        Awesome. I'm glad you said, "I". My argument is that my carb intake is irrelevant compared to nuclear proliferation. My argument goes like this. Carb intake does probably lower life significantly, but doesn't lead to potentially worse outcomes compared to say nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Carb intake usually affects people's life not early, but late. And if you believe that "carb intake" is a rational choice and not an urge made by the lizard brain then I would argue it's my choice -- my freedom -- and well get a boundary. OTOH, a nuclear incident would affect a broad swath of people across all ages. And it's not their choice.
        modo_mario 1y ago
        You argue like it's one or the other which is genuinely inane. >Carb intake usually affects people's life not early, but late. It affects people before more severe medical consequences start setting in too.
    - mvdtnz 1y ago
      Truth is not relative. What a shame what your American universities have done to your young minds.
- diziet 1y ago
  You can do more things to change your future healthspan than you can do things to change nuclear proliferation. A major positive impact of exercise is stronger bones and less risk of major injury from falling and other accidents.
spudlyo 1y ago
Consistent exercise is right below getting consistent quality sleep in the category of "benefits you would happily pay $1000/mo for if they came in a syringe". The benefits are both mental and physical. If you value your mind you should seriously consider paying attention to both.
throwaway2037 1y ago
Real question: I remember a long time ago reading a theory that the amount of time you spend on physical fitness is roughly equal to the amount of longevity gained. Said another way: If you spend one hour running for exercise, you might gain about one hour of extra longevity. It seems nearly impossible to study this theory at scale, but I am curious if there has been any other research. To be clear, I'm not using this post to "dog whistle" that people should not exercise for fitness.
- mindwok 1y ago
  Even if that were the case, exercise can still be enjoyable for its own sake - and the high of having done it means the hours after are more enjoyable, too.
  - froddd 1y ago
    Alongside the quality of life and mental health improvements, too — some clear positives.
    - throwaway2037 1y ago
      Great point: The mental health improvements cannot be understated. Even if the physical impact is net-neutral, the mental health impact is surely positive.
  - shlant 1y ago
    as someone who has always been a healthy (or even under) weight, but still struggled with keeping up an active lifestyle, this is the key - find some form of exercise that is actually enjoyable for you. I have gone through multiple bouts of being able to do weightlifting for example for 6 months or so at a time. However, I always end up stopping (for longer than I could do it for) because it just isn't enjoyable. The monotony of doing the same lifts over and over again (even if the weight was increasing) just wasn't engaging enough to keep it as a part of my lifestyle. I discovered rock climbing a year and a half ago and have been going every 2 or 3 days since (other than 2 weeks off one time due to injury). It's such an interesting sport that combines strength, agility, problem solving and collaboration. It's actually engaging which means I never have to be disciplined to continue doing it on days I don't feel up to it. The exercise isn't the point and yet my body is in better shape then it's ever been. I think more people need to find that something.

by mvdtnz 1y ago

You think exercise is "not that important in the grand scheme of things"? I urge you to do a bit of research on the topic, if you care about living a long and healthy life.

bb88 1y ago

If you think it's important for you, awesome. I personally think nuclear proliferation is a more important issue for the world than if I lose weight or not. And that's okay for me, and it should be okay for you, too.

mvdtnz 1y ago
I didn't say anything about losing weight.
chemicalnovae 1y ago
The parent said exercise though right, not weight loss? Exercise can/does lead to weight loss but it's certainly not the only benefit and might not even be the most important one.
tbrownaw 1y ago
> I personally think nuclear proliferation is a more important issue for the world than if I lose weight or not. That's a bad comparison though. A better one would be the effects that you losing weight (or getting in shape or whatever) would have on your life vs the effects that nuclear proliferation would have on your life. Or the effects that globally eliminating obesity would have on life expectancy vs the effects that solving proliferation would have on life expectancy.
- bb88 1y ago
  I completely disagree with you, as is my right. And you can disagree with me, and that's okay. I absolutely, truly believe nuclear proliferation is more dangerous than carbs. Fight me. The problem with your argument are the words, "you" and "your". You are making the mistake that pj50c is exactly arguing against. People arguing in effect, that "__you__ should do something." "If only __you__ understood...." "If only __you__ could control your lizard brain telling you you're hungry...." Those are your beliefs. They are not mine. And this is what people talk about when respecting "boundaries". I'm not saying you can't have you're opinion. And you can say, "I believe x, y, and z. And here's why...." And I'd be fine with that. In fact, I'd probably be more open to listening to you.
  - tbrownaw 1y ago
    No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that of course comparing the effects of Intervention A on one person vs the effects of Intervention B on everyone will give a predetermined result. And that a proper comparison must either have an individual on both sides, or the whole group on both sides.
    - bb88 1y ago
      Awesome. I'm glad you said, "I". My argument is that my carb intake is irrelevant compared to nuclear proliferation. My argument goes like this. Carb intake does probably lower life significantly, but doesn't lead to potentially worse outcomes compared to say nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Carb intake usually affects people's life not early, but late. And if you believe that "carb intake" is a rational choice and not an urge made by the lizard brain then I would argue it's my choice -- my freedom -- and well get a boundary. OTOH, a nuclear incident would affect a broad swath of people across all ages. And it's not their choice.
      - modo_mario 1y ago
        You argue like it's one or the other which is genuinely inane. >Carb intake usually affects people's life not early, but late. It affects people before more severe medical consequences start setting in too.
  - mvdtnz 1y ago
    Truth is not relative. What a shame what your American universities have done to your young minds.
diziet 1y ago
You can do more things to change your future healthspan than you can do things to change nuclear proliferation. A major positive impact of exercise is stronger bones and less risk of major injury from falling and other accidents.

spudlyo 1y ago

Consistent exercise is right below getting consistent quality sleep in the category of "benefits you would happily pay $1000/mo for if they came in a syringe". The benefits are both mental and physical. If you value your mind you should seriously consider paying attention to both.

throwaway2037 1y ago

Real question: I remember a long time ago reading a theory that the amount of time you spend on physical fitness is roughly equal to the amount of longevity gained. Said another way: If you spend one hour running for exercise, you might gain about one hour of extra longevity. It seems nearly impossible to study this theory at scale, but I am curious if there has been any other research. To be clear, I'm not using this post to "dog whistle" that people should not exercise for fitness.

mindwok 1y ago
Even if that were the case, exercise can still be enjoyable for its own sake - and the high of having done it means the hours after are more enjoyable, too.
- froddd 1y ago
  Alongside the quality of life and mental health improvements, too — some clear positives.
  - throwaway2037 1y ago
    Great point: The mental health improvements cannot be understated. Even if the physical impact is net-neutral, the mental health impact is surely positive.
- shlant 1y ago
  as someone who has always been a healthy (or even under) weight, but still struggled with keeping up an active lifestyle, this is the key - find some form of exercise that is actually enjoyable for you. I have gone through multiple bouts of being able to do weightlifting for example for 6 months or so at a time. However, I always end up stopping (for longer than I could do it for) because it just isn't enjoyable. The monotony of doing the same lifts over and over again (even if the weight was increasing) just wasn't engaging enough to keep it as a part of my lifestyle. I discovered rock climbing a year and a half ago and have been going every 2 or 3 days since (other than 2 weeks off one time due to injury). It's such an interesting sport that combines strength, agility, problem solving and collaboration. It's actually engaging which means I never have to be disciplined to continue doing it on days I don't feel up to it. The exercise isn't the point and yet my body is in better shape then it's ever been. I think more people need to find that something.