5 ms·

Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production

152 points by littlexsparkee 4mo ago

jsw97 4mo ago
19 subjects, assigned sedentary or active based on habitual physical activity levels. Subjects were screened on basic health measures. The problem with this is that people are sedentary or active for a variety of health-related reasons that are not captured in any screen (esp. the crude one used in this study). As a predictive study, this is fine, sedentarism predicts a lot of bad things. But it doesn't, on its own, suggest that becoming active is helpful. See also grip strength and mortality.
- adam_arthur 4mo ago
  The principle of what you're stating is true, it could be correlational. But there's an enormous volume of evidence that exercise, especially intense exercise, is better for health than any other intervention, including more sleep, quality of diet, pills+supplements (except those that treat an active illness/disease of course). There's even compelling data showing that moderate drinkers who exercise live longer than non-drinkers who don't exercise. Even given that Alcohol is a powerful carcinogen. The only thing proven more effective than exercise is weight loss really, if starting from high bodyfat levels. (Anything above ~15% bodyfat in men seems to have negative implications for lifespan, and ~30% for women)
  - makeitdouble 4mo ago
    > specially intense exercise That sounds like a study that is pretty tough to control for, especially long term and at scale. You'd need to find subjects that are provably capable of sustaining intense exercise as a habit if they wanted to but never did, and won't either for the years you'll be following them. That won't work in the reverse, as people can be consciously or not self adjusting based on the health conditions you're trying to check. PS: I'm remembering a friend who never liked running, but tried pretty hard after being pestered by their doctor and family, to discover that their knees are just not good and their whole lineage hated running for a reason. Intense exercise can be anything else, but people won't know their real health limitations until they actually do it for a while.
    - adam_arthur 4mo ago
      A large volume of studies already exist. That intense exercise is good, and even very good for you, is proven as far as reasonably possible given that we can't run deterministically controlled experiments. More evidence may come out that adds nuance, but the effect size is so large that it becomes obvious in the data just from observation. You can cycle or stationary bike if you have bad knees. There are plenty of exercises that are intense but easy on the joints.
      - makeitdouble 4mo ago
        I am aware of that for exercising, but was ignorant of what "intense" actually means in this context. And you're right. Looking around, the simplest wording I get: > the intensity must be high. This means that you need to really exert yourself so you get out of breath. [https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2026/05/exercise-a-very-little-goes-a-long-way/ https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2026/05/exercise-a-very-lit...] So if climbing the stairs gets someone out of breath it's intense (and I also see how getting to your limits, whatever they are, can help)
        adam_arthur 4mo ago
        Yeah, typically "intense exercise" is implying HIIT style cardio. More and more studies have been indicating that even just a few minutes of intense exercise can outperform long/slow LISS type cardios. E.g. 5m all out effort is probably better, or at least equivalent, for health than a 30m moderate effort. The average person can likely hit the 80/20 benefit threshold at less than 30m/week.
        Swizec 4mo ago
        > More and more studies have been indicating that even just a few minutes of intense exercise can outperform long/slow LISS type cardios. For best results run fast and far. During my personal best marathon (3h 15min) my heart rate averaged in the 170 range
  - faangguyindia 4mo ago
    >(Anything above ~15% bodyfat in men has negative implications for lifespan, and ~30% for women; when reviewed at scale) Can you link evidence for this? I stay at 12% year around as male (confirmed via DEXA)
    - adam_arthur 4mo ago
      The claim comes from this study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.7326/M15-1181 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.7326/M15-1181 Though to be clear, there aren't a ton of studies that look at bodyfat percentage. Most use BMI and similar measures. Likely overall fat levels matter more than %, I'd guess. E.g. I'd presume being 15% at very muscular levels is less healthy than 15% at moderate. (Because absolute fat mass plus visceral fat would be higher)
    - Jweb_Guru 4mo ago
      Sounds like absolute BS to me. Even in very large scale studies specifically designed for studying mortality, only morbid obesity has been negatively correlated with lifespan. There is even some evidence that being a little overweight is actually helpful for the very old (essentially, because it gives them more buffer if they get sick enough that they stop eating for a while). A lot of this is because modern medicine has gotten very good at treating stuff like diabetes and other stuff caused by obesity. Your quality of life will undoubtedly improve if you are thinner, but that's not the same thing.
      - andsoitis 4mo ago
        [dead]
      - adam_arthur 4mo ago
        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36756765/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36756765/ Lowest risk is around 18-20 BMI in this recent study, which controls for many confounding factors not controlled for in other studies. Other studies show slightly higher troughs, but often don't sufficiently control for correlation of weight with health in elderly people. From this study: Estimates of mortality differences by body mass index (BMI) are likely biased by: (1) confounding bias from heterogeneity in body shape; (2) positive survival bias in high-BMI samples due to recent weight gain; and (3) negative survival bias in low-BMI samples due to recent weight loss And if you follow the longevity/health space and studies as they come out, it's becoming pretty clear that bodyfat is objectively bad for you above a pretty low baseline. It shows up in insulin resistance, heart markers, inflammation, and once you control for confounding factors sufficiently, mortality. You likely won't become diabetic with a bodyfat of 25%, but all your health markers will be worse than somebody at 15%. This is measurable and clear.
  - strbean 4mo ago
    I'd love to find out if electrical muscle stimulation while sleeping could effectively provide exercise without causing excessive sleep disruption. Could be a zero-effort supplemental form of exercise for sedentary people.
    - Schiendelman 4mo ago
      It can't, because it isn't training your heart and cardiovascular system.
      - strbean 4mo ago
        Well, it's causing muscle contractions. At high enough intensity, it should raise your heart rate. It's just a matter of what intensity level is tolerable during sleep (and the effect on sleep quality), no?
        Schiendelman 4mo ago
        No, that would wake you up long before it had cardiovascular benefit. You need your heart rate up into zone 2 to 5 to really have a positive impact. That's 120 BPM plus for most people. Once you're around 80 it'll wake up anyone, even someone with very low cardiovascular fitness.
        strbean 4mo ago
        > Once you're around 80 it'll wake up anyone Source? I haven't been able to find info on this. I get resuls on nocturnal tachycardia and such. Nothing on elevating a sleeping person's heart rate and observing the result, though.
        Schiendelman 4mo ago
        To be clear, if you implanted a lead, you might not wake them up. It's the mechanism by which you would raise their heartrate that would wake them - the same things that elevate heartrate from external stimulation would also cause cortical arousal.
nine_k 4mo ago
> mitochondria, which process energy within cells, showed a significantly decreased capacity to burn both sugar and fat in healthy individuals who get less than the recommended 150 minutes of exercise a week. 150 minutes a week is about than 22 minutes a day. Like 11 minutes twice a day. This looks like a really low effort to rid oneself of the risk of early decline.
- SchemaLoad 4mo ago
  A lot of people who use a car to get around will spend most days doing literally no actual exercise. For someone who lives in a more walkable area, 22 minutes of exercise is just living live normally without actively "exercising".
  - Insanity 4mo ago
    I walk to the office during warm days, it’s about 30 minutes to get there. I get essentially an hour of walking just by commuting. If I drive, it takes me 15 minutes (Toronto traffic is horrible). So doesn’t even gain me much in terms of time. Just sad that temperatures here drop so low I don’t want to walk for half the year lol.
- sidewndr46 4mo ago
  I've seen studies like this before. They'll suggest that as little as 15 minutes of exercise significantly improves health in some group they studied. My initial assumption was they added 15 minutes of additional exercise. No, they studied people who did literally nothing. Then had them exercise 15 minutes a day. As you might guess, their outcomes improved greatly.
  - SchemaLoad 4mo ago
    This is sadly not a rare type of person. I'm worried my parents fit this description, they drive everywhere and work an office job. I'd guess on average they get 0 minutes of exercise a day. I think people get this image in their head that someone who doesn't exercise ever is this comically fat unemployed person when in reality it's the average office worker who isn't fitness minded. A good chunk of HN users wouldn't be getting 15 minutes of exercise a day.
rustcleaner 4mo ago
[flagged]
Herring 4mo ago
I'm confused. The study doesn't mention "Zone 2" even once ...
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
wonderwonder 4mo ago
Seems like a potential use for peptides like Mots-C or SLU-PP-332
- jr3592 4mo ago
  It would be cool if one could safely adapt to modern life (lots of sitting, required focus over long sessions) without having to spend time exercising if they don't want to (to be clear, some people want to). Imagine if you could just take something to get all the benefits of exercise, without having to actually spend the time. That'd be pretty great for everyone if it truly was safe and without downsides (skeptical).
  - SchemaLoad 4mo ago
    What if we could just lay in a pod 24/7 taking peptides and nutrient supplements while having an endless stream of instagram reals beamed in to our eyeballs on our Meta Raybans. That way we would never have to do pesky things like go outside or move.
    - topgrain2 4mo ago
      On the other hand, a pill to replace all the un-fun activity needed to stay in shape while having a family and office job would let you enjoy fun activity a lot more, and want to do those things more often, since they’re all more-fun and safer if you’re already in shape.
      - owebmaster 4mo ago
        People in good shape don't hate exercise.
        topgrain2 4mo ago
        Plenty of them hate at least some of it! Source: have spent years at a stretch in pretty great shape. I definitely hated a good amount of what I had to do to achieve and maintain that. Disliked the activity, or simply would rather have been doing something else. But, lots of other stuff (including pretty much all other physical activity) is way more fun if you're at least somewhat in-shape.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
tim-tday 4mo ago
Exercise is the key to a long healthspan.
faangguyindia 4mo ago
I was busy building a sensorless maintenance calorie tracker. Sometime back i posted this on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48614890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48614890 It also has "sedentary" detection which i find pretty useful for the phases when my activity level drops, reduced activity directly reflects in your maintenance calories which maybe useful to some.
Ozzie-D 4mo ago
[flagged]
b212 4mo ago
Of If I walk 10 km a day on average and do strength trainings 2-3x a week but sit for 10 hours a day - am I sedentary or not?
- owebmaster 4mo ago
  What do you think?
meristohm 4mo ago
I abhor exercise for the sake of it. Instead, I refuse to use a car to do anything but bring my family members to distant medical appointments, and the rare carpool'd vacation. Anything within ~ten miles of home I do with human power, sometimes augmented by stored electrical energy (cargo ebike; I contribute ~1/3 the Wattage). Thus, I get plenty of exercise throughout the day. We used to meet our needs by moving our bodies. Understandably, there are perceived benefits to outsourcing transportation, and very real consequences. Exception is a morning plank to wake up my core, and sometimes forward bends with a weight. I don't like to do it, but I do feel better afterwards (like with cold showers), so I do it. Harder to do with longer exercise routines, which is why I addressed the cause of my unease rather than slapped on plasters.
anon291 4mo ago
I have no idea what 'sedentary' even means. I work on a desk mostly but I also walk 15 - 20 k steps per day because that's just my life and I accomplish most daily tasks (shopping, going to park, coffee, etc walking). Is that sedentary?
- zaradvutra 4mo ago
  According to the study: Sedentary (SED, n = 9): No regular exercise or elevated heart rate beyond daily tasks. Active (AC, n = 10): ≥150 min/week aerobic exercise for ≥6 months. I guess if you walk fast and sustain that walking pace for some time, it could count (HR in Zone 2/3). But there's really no replacement for a couple sessions of any sport a week (running, cycling, swimming, tennis, soccer - whatever gets you on your feet and moving).
  - anon291 4mo ago
    Oh sure I run about 10 miles / week, but that's only like 2 hours max running. I still sit most of the day and have tons of 'sitting' problems. I don't know what everyone else's experience with tech work is, but sports is max 4-5 hours / week, and about 20 hours is spent mostly sitting even with a standing desk. Still have the lower back issues that most sitters have.
fsckboy 4mo ago
Our mitochondria process the total of our energy needs every day, while exercise adds, percentagewise, only fractional additional energy need. do you think mitochondria notice the difference? I don't. If I cut my caloric intake, I drop weight like nobody's business, and that's all thanks to my mitochondria at their place in the chain. It's the same thing my mitochondria are doing when I overeat and put on weight.
- esailija 4mo ago
  If you live paycheck to paycheck and then get a 25% salary increase, if everything else stays the same, in a year you have already saved 300% worth of your original salary vs 0%. That is even with your unwarranted assumption that all energy use is the same and doesn't cause different adaptations. This kind of simplicity is just not happening in biology.
  - Tarq0n 4mo ago
    Exactly, this is called a marginal effect and it's very relevant for our bodies which basically need their homeostasis disrupted to be prompted to adapt.
    - fsckboy 4mo ago
      marginal effects are small, but it's where the integration and feedback add up or even multiply. the claim here is that the mitchondria are paying attention to their own marginal quantities which are quite small; the outsized effects if they are someplace will lie elsewhere. For example, sendentary life will lead to less muscle mass, which means fewer mitochondria overall, but that's not the individual mitochondria "noticing" anything.
rienbdj 4mo ago
Not sure how one can be healthy and sedentary.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 4mo ago
If I go to the gym 5 times per week but otherwise sit all day, am I considered sedentary?
panda888888 4mo ago
19 subjects? I'll disregard the results. That's not a big enough sample size to be meaningful.

152 points by littlexsparkee 4mo ago

jsw97 4mo ago

19 subjects, assigned sedentary or active based on habitual physical activity levels. Subjects were screened on basic health measures. The problem with this is that people are sedentary or active for a variety of health-related reasons that are not captured in any screen (esp. the crude one used in this study). As a predictive study, this is fine, sedentarism predicts a lot of bad things. But it doesn't, on its own, suggest that becoming active is helpful. See also grip strength and mortality.

adam_arthur 4mo ago
The principle of what you're stating is true, it could be correlational. But there's an enormous volume of evidence that exercise, especially intense exercise, is better for health than any other intervention, including more sleep, quality of diet, pills+supplements (except those that treat an active illness/disease of course). There's even compelling data showing that moderate drinkers who exercise live longer than non-drinkers who don't exercise. Even given that Alcohol is a powerful carcinogen. The only thing proven more effective than exercise is weight loss really, if starting from high bodyfat levels. (Anything above ~15% bodyfat in men seems to have negative implications for lifespan, and ~30% for women)
- makeitdouble 4mo ago
  > specially intense exercise That sounds like a study that is pretty tough to control for, especially long term and at scale. You'd need to find subjects that are provably capable of sustaining intense exercise as a habit if they wanted to but never did, and won't either for the years you'll be following them. That won't work in the reverse, as people can be consciously or not self adjusting based on the health conditions you're trying to check. PS: I'm remembering a friend who never liked running, but tried pretty hard after being pestered by their doctor and family, to discover that their knees are just not good and their whole lineage hated running for a reason. Intense exercise can be anything else, but people won't know their real health limitations until they actually do it for a while.
  - adam_arthur 4mo ago
    A large volume of studies already exist. That intense exercise is good, and even very good for you, is proven as far as reasonably possible given that we can't run deterministically controlled experiments. More evidence may come out that adds nuance, but the effect size is so large that it becomes obvious in the data just from observation. You can cycle or stationary bike if you have bad knees. There are plenty of exercises that are intense but easy on the joints.
    - makeitdouble 4mo ago
      I am aware of that for exercising, but was ignorant of what "intense" actually means in this context. And you're right. Looking around, the simplest wording I get: > the intensity must be high. This means that you need to really exert yourself so you get out of breath. [https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2026/05/exercise-a-very-little-goes-a-long-way/ https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2026/05/exercise-a-very-lit...] So if climbing the stairs gets someone out of breath it's intense (and I also see how getting to your limits, whatever they are, can help)
      - adam_arthur 4mo ago
        Yeah, typically "intense exercise" is implying HIIT style cardio. More and more studies have been indicating that even just a few minutes of intense exercise can outperform long/slow LISS type cardios. E.g. 5m all out effort is probably better, or at least equivalent, for health than a 30m moderate effort. The average person can likely hit the 80/20 benefit threshold at less than 30m/week.
        Swizec 4mo ago
        > More and more studies have been indicating that even just a few minutes of intense exercise can outperform long/slow LISS type cardios. For best results run fast and far. During my personal best marathon (3h 15min) my heart rate averaged in the 170 range
- faangguyindia 4mo ago
  >(Anything above ~15% bodyfat in men has negative implications for lifespan, and ~30% for women; when reviewed at scale) Can you link evidence for this? I stay at 12% year around as male (confirmed via DEXA)
  - adam_arthur 4mo ago
    The claim comes from this study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.7326/M15-1181 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.7326/M15-1181 Though to be clear, there aren't a ton of studies that look at bodyfat percentage. Most use BMI and similar measures. Likely overall fat levels matter more than %, I'd guess. E.g. I'd presume being 15% at very muscular levels is less healthy than 15% at moderate. (Because absolute fat mass plus visceral fat would be higher)
  - Jweb_Guru 4mo ago
    Sounds like absolute BS to me. Even in very large scale studies specifically designed for studying mortality, only morbid obesity has been negatively correlated with lifespan. There is even some evidence that being a little overweight is actually helpful for the very old (essentially, because it gives them more buffer if they get sick enough that they stop eating for a while). A lot of this is because modern medicine has gotten very good at treating stuff like diabetes and other stuff caused by obesity. Your quality of life will undoubtedly improve if you are thinner, but that's not the same thing.
    - andsoitis 4mo ago
      [dead]
    - adam_arthur 4mo ago
      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36756765/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36756765/ Lowest risk is around 18-20 BMI in this recent study, which controls for many confounding factors not controlled for in other studies. Other studies show slightly higher troughs, but often don't sufficiently control for correlation of weight with health in elderly people. From this study: Estimates of mortality differences by body mass index (BMI) are likely biased by: (1) confounding bias from heterogeneity in body shape; (2) positive survival bias in high-BMI samples due to recent weight gain; and (3) negative survival bias in low-BMI samples due to recent weight loss And if you follow the longevity/health space and studies as they come out, it's becoming pretty clear that bodyfat is objectively bad for you above a pretty low baseline. It shows up in insulin resistance, heart markers, inflammation, and once you control for confounding factors sufficiently, mortality. You likely won't become diabetic with a bodyfat of 25%, but all your health markers will be worse than somebody at 15%. This is measurable and clear.
- strbean 4mo ago
  I'd love to find out if electrical muscle stimulation while sleeping could effectively provide exercise without causing excessive sleep disruption. Could be a zero-effort supplemental form of exercise for sedentary people.
  - Schiendelman 4mo ago
    It can't, because it isn't training your heart and cardiovascular system.
    - strbean 4mo ago
      Well, it's causing muscle contractions. At high enough intensity, it should raise your heart rate. It's just a matter of what intensity level is tolerable during sleep (and the effect on sleep quality), no?
      - Schiendelman 4mo ago
        No, that would wake you up long before it had cardiovascular benefit. You need your heart rate up into zone 2 to 5 to really have a positive impact. That's 120 BPM plus for most people. Once you're around 80 it'll wake up anyone, even someone with very low cardiovascular fitness.
        strbean 4mo ago
        > Once you're around 80 it'll wake up anyone Source? I haven't been able to find info on this. I get resuls on nocturnal tachycardia and such. Nothing on elevating a sleeping person's heart rate and observing the result, though.
        Schiendelman 4mo ago
        To be clear, if you implanted a lead, you might not wake them up. It's the mechanism by which you would raise their heartrate that would wake them - the same things that elevate heartrate from external stimulation would also cause cortical arousal.

nine_k 4mo ago

> mitochondria, which process energy within cells, showed a significantly decreased capacity to burn both sugar and fat in healthy individuals who get less than the recommended 150 minutes of exercise a week. 150 minutes a week is about than 22 minutes a day. Like 11 minutes twice a day. This looks like a really low effort to rid oneself of the risk of early decline.

SchemaLoad 4mo ago
A lot of people who use a car to get around will spend most days doing literally no actual exercise. For someone who lives in a more walkable area, 22 minutes of exercise is just living live normally without actively "exercising".
- Insanity 4mo ago
  I walk to the office during warm days, it’s about 30 minutes to get there. I get essentially an hour of walking just by commuting. If I drive, it takes me 15 minutes (Toronto traffic is horrible). So doesn’t even gain me much in terms of time. Just sad that temperatures here drop so low I don’t want to walk for half the year lol.
sidewndr46 4mo ago
I've seen studies like this before. They'll suggest that as little as 15 minutes of exercise significantly improves health in some group they studied. My initial assumption was they added 15 minutes of additional exercise. No, they studied people who did literally nothing. Then had them exercise 15 minutes a day. As you might guess, their outcomes improved greatly.
- SchemaLoad 4mo ago
  This is sadly not a rare type of person. I'm worried my parents fit this description, they drive everywhere and work an office job. I'd guess on average they get 0 minutes of exercise a day. I think people get this image in their head that someone who doesn't exercise ever is this comically fat unemployed person when in reality it's the average office worker who isn't fitness minded. A good chunk of HN users wouldn't be getting 15 minutes of exercise a day.

rustcleaner 4mo ago

[flagged]

Herring 4mo ago

I'm confused. The study doesn't mention "Zone 2" even once ...

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

wonderwonder 4mo ago

Seems like a potential use for peptides like Mots-C or SLU-PP-332

jr3592 4mo ago
It would be cool if one could safely adapt to modern life (lots of sitting, required focus over long sessions) without having to spend time exercising if they don't want to (to be clear, some people want to). Imagine if you could just take something to get all the benefits of exercise, without having to actually spend the time. That'd be pretty great for everyone if it truly was safe and without downsides (skeptical).
- SchemaLoad 4mo ago
  What if we could just lay in a pod 24/7 taking peptides and nutrient supplements while having an endless stream of instagram reals beamed in to our eyeballs on our Meta Raybans. That way we would never have to do pesky things like go outside or move.
  - topgrain2 4mo ago
    On the other hand, a pill to replace all the un-fun activity needed to stay in shape while having a family and office job would let you enjoy fun activity a lot more, and want to do those things more often, since they’re all more-fun and safer if you’re already in shape.
    - owebmaster 4mo ago
      People in good shape don't hate exercise.
      - topgrain2 4mo ago
        Plenty of them hate at least some of it! Source: have spent years at a stretch in pretty great shape. I definitely hated a good amount of what I had to do to achieve and maintain that. Disliked the activity, or simply would rather have been doing something else. But, lots of other stuff (including pretty much all other physical activity) is way more fun if you're at least somewhat in-shape.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

tim-tday 4mo ago

Exercise is the key to a long healthspan.

faangguyindia 4mo ago

I was busy building a sensorless maintenance calorie tracker. Sometime back i posted this on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48614890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48614890 It also has "sedentary" detection which i find pretty useful for the phases when my activity level drops, reduced activity directly reflects in your maintenance calories which maybe useful to some.

Ozzie-D 4mo ago

[flagged]

b212 4mo ago

Of If I walk 10 km a day on average and do strength trainings 2-3x a week but sit for 10 hours a day - am I sedentary or not?

owebmaster 4mo ago
What do you think?

meristohm 4mo ago

I abhor exercise for the sake of it. Instead, I refuse to use a car to do anything but bring my family members to distant medical appointments, and the rare carpool'd vacation. Anything within ~ten miles of home I do with human power, sometimes augmented by stored electrical energy (cargo ebike; I contribute ~1/3 the Wattage). Thus, I get plenty of exercise throughout the day. We used to meet our needs by moving our bodies. Understandably, there are perceived benefits to outsourcing transportation, and very real consequences. Exception is a morning plank to wake up my core, and sometimes forward bends with a weight. I don't like to do it, but I do feel better afterwards (like with cold showers), so I do it. Harder to do with longer exercise routines, which is why I addressed the cause of my unease rather than slapped on plasters.

anon291 4mo ago

I have no idea what 'sedentary' even means. I work on a desk mostly but I also walk 15 - 20 k steps per day because that's just my life and I accomplish most daily tasks (shopping, going to park, coffee, etc walking). Is that sedentary?

zaradvutra 4mo ago
According to the study: Sedentary (SED, n = 9): No regular exercise or elevated heart rate beyond daily tasks. Active (AC, n = 10): ≥150 min/week aerobic exercise for ≥6 months. I guess if you walk fast and sustain that walking pace for some time, it could count (HR in Zone 2/3). But there's really no replacement for a couple sessions of any sport a week (running, cycling, swimming, tennis, soccer - whatever gets you on your feet and moving).
- anon291 4mo ago
  Oh sure I run about 10 miles / week, but that's only like 2 hours max running. I still sit most of the day and have tons of 'sitting' problems. I don't know what everyone else's experience with tech work is, but sports is max 4-5 hours / week, and about 20 hours is spent mostly sitting even with a standing desk. Still have the lower back issues that most sitters have.

fsckboy 4mo ago

Our mitochondria process the total of our energy needs every day, while exercise adds, percentagewise, only fractional additional energy need. do you think mitochondria notice the difference? I don't. If I cut my caloric intake, I drop weight like nobody's business, and that's all thanks to my mitochondria at their place in the chain. It's the same thing my mitochondria are doing when I overeat and put on weight.

esailija 4mo ago
If you live paycheck to paycheck and then get a 25% salary increase, if everything else stays the same, in a year you have already saved 300% worth of your original salary vs 0%. That is even with your unwarranted assumption that all energy use is the same and doesn't cause different adaptations. This kind of simplicity is just not happening in biology.
- Tarq0n 4mo ago
  Exactly, this is called a marginal effect and it's very relevant for our bodies which basically need their homeostasis disrupted to be prompted to adapt.
  - fsckboy 4mo ago
    marginal effects are small, but it's where the integration and feedback add up or even multiply. the claim here is that the mitchondria are paying attention to their own marginal quantities which are quite small; the outsized effects if they are someplace will lie elsewhere. For example, sendentary life will lead to less muscle mass, which means fewer mitochondria overall, but that's not the individual mitochondria "noticing" anything.

rienbdj 4mo ago

Not sure how one can be healthy and sedentary.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 4mo ago

If I go to the gym 5 times per week but otherwise sit all day, am I considered sedentary?

panda888888 4mo ago

19 subjects? I'll disregard the results. That's not a big enough sample size to be meaningful.