12 ms·

Lack of exercise kills roughly as many as smoking, study says

162 points by arjn 13y ago

RankingMember 13y ago
Another article to forward bosses with purchase orders for treadmill desks attached. :)
hownottowrite 13y ago
From 2012... Here's the referenced article from The Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60898-8/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
hobs 13y ago
All I thought was, that's all? I would have expected lack of exercise killed many more.
raverbashing 13y ago
I find these kind of news worrying, but for the wrong reasons. This is more about pushing an agenda, maybe increasing health insurance premiums and blaming people. Rate of death is still 100% for humans, regardless of what you do. Sure, maybe it's healthier to work standing or I don't know, but the end result is the same. Not to mention health problems caused by exercise itself. Or even worse, weekend exercisers that go and overexert themselves then causing a heart attack.
- sz4kerto 13y ago
  Cognitive dissonance? >Not to mention health problems caused by exercise itself. Or even worse, weekend exercisers that go and overexert themselves then causing a heart attack. Well, it's extremely rare that people get heart attack because of excercise. It happens, but it's really rare. It's so rare that we can safely say: excercise is good for your health, and not having any excercise is bad, period. You can screw it up by not doing it right, however, overdoing it is almost impossible -- given you do it right. Running too much, for example, is almost impossible, if you get over the initial period of losing excess weight, and you drink and eat enough, etc.
  - codelap 13y ago
    It's not very common, but it also isn't nearly as rare as you're making it sound. I'll look for the study, but IIRC, if you're over 50, and you vigorously exercise more than 2 hours a week, your chance of a heart attack is actually greater than if you vigorously exercise only a couple minutes a week. And I think it's around 1 in 15k. Which although not common, is far from almost impossible.
    - Retric 13y ago
      Did you find a link to that study? 2 hours of vigorous exercise a week can still represent a vary sedentary lifestyle. I would in no way be surprised that people who are over 50, overweight, and start a strenuous exercise program as if they where still in there 20's had a significant risk of heart attack. On the other had if there only looking at healthy people with long term exercise programs that's another issue entirely.
      - kbutler 13y ago
        http://running.competitor.com/2012/06/news/how-much-running-is-bad-for-your-heart_54331 http://running.competitor.com/2012/06/news/how-much-running-... "Repeated extreme exercise or long-distance racing can cause a buildup of scar tissue on the heart, which can lead to the development of patchy myocardial fibrosis in up to 12% of marathon runners. The effects of “chronic exercise” can also include premature aging of the heart, stiffening of the heart muscles, and an increase in arrhythmias and atrial fibrillation." "A 15-year observational study of 52,000 adults found that the highest degree of survival and health was found from running less than 20 miles per week, in runs of 30 to 45 minutes over three or four days, at about an 8:30 to 10:00 pace. The benefits decrease at amounts greater than that." "Originally, it appeared the race-related damage was less severe in people who trained over 45 miles per week, but O’Keefe says that doesn’t prove to always be true." As with most things, it appears that exercise is neither a panacea nor an unqualified good thing, but no doubt under-exercise is more prevalent than over-exercise...
        irremediable 13y ago
- codelap 13y ago
  Living is after all, the number one cause of death with 100% fatality rate. I feel that we're living long enough now. Until we are able to get our resource abuses under control and eliminate poverty the world over, then ~75+/-10 is a reasonable expectation. And when will these studies factor in quality of life.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Technically, life in humans is only known to have about a 93% fatality rate, although it's likely the remaining 7% will succumb in time.
    - codelap 13y ago
      Funny. But don't use the word technically, because that's factually incorrect. A bug spray need not kill every mosquito in existence to prove that it has 100% fatality rate on mosquitoes.
      - tekacs 13y ago
        It depends on your model - no number of mosquitos killed can deductively prove (à la mathematical proof) that a bug spray will kill all mosquitoes. It can at best inductively prove it - the scientific approach, or alternately do what you called '100% rate' (the hidden words there being 'so far').
        lutusp 13y ago
        Avoid use of the word "prove" in a discussion of science and scientific theories. Science can't prove theories true, it can only prove theories false. Philosopher David Hume expressed this best: “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.”
        indlebe 13y ago
- nodata 13y ago
  > Rate of death is still 100% for humans, regardless of what you do. Nobody is saying that humans don't die. The article is saying that something which has a very negative know effect on people's health: smoking, is just as bad as doing no exercise.
- melling 13y ago
  Your argument isn't quite as good as this one that I heard all the time as a kid: "People who don't smoke die of lung cancer too." Your argument probably falls more in line with the Jim Fixx excuse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fixx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fixx I could write a long explanation on why you're wrong but I think it's better for you to figure it out for yourself.
- arjie 13y ago
  Wouldn't a more useful measure be deaths/100k per year? In general rate describes speed. What you describe is more like 'probability' of death. Checking the definition of mortality rate, this seems closer to the general use. About the only difference is Case Fatality Rate which should perhaps be called Case Fatality Ratio instead.
- stefan_kendall 13y ago
  Suppose there's a vaccine that has a 1 in a million chance to kill you. Also suppose you have a 1% chance to catch and die from a disease without the vaccine. You would take the vaccine every time.
  - stillsut 13y ago
    Not necessarily. Let's apply that to the Herpes Virus known to be risk factor for cervical cancer. There is a greater than 1% you catch the disease. But, the risk you die from it is lower, maybe in 10,000? (Even the people who research it probably would have a hard time giving an estimate within an order of magnitude). So would a parent give it to their child at 1 in a million? Assuming every child is given this vaccine 10M+, there would be around a dozen known fatalities. Both parents and FDA would probably have big problems with this. (Disclaimer: this a hypothetical using a known condition but with made up facts. I take no position on "the vaccine debate" here.)
vezzy-fnord 13y ago
Half an hour of brisk walking five times a week would do the trick. Good to know I'm satisfying the bare minimum for not dying.
- TillE 13y ago
  That lines up pretty well with the recommendation of 7,000 steps per day: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/tips-for-getting-exercise-into-your-life/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/tips-for-getting... Fitbit's default goal of 10,000 seems to work well, and I walk very fast everywhere as long as there's not ice on the ground.
undoware 13y ago
This is why I always jog with a cigarette.
- sergiotapia 13y ago
  The math checks out. You're good to go.
- jbuzbee 13y ago
  No joke - One of my friends was amazed the day he was at another friend's house and noticed that she had one of those great-big ashtrays attached to her treadmill to allow walking and smoking at the same time...
- visakanv 13y ago
  I used to take long walks with my cigarettes sometimes. And I knew guys in the army who'd chug cigarettes before and after running.
spodek 13y ago
Calling activity that raises your heart rate exercise makes it seem like something you have to go out of your way to do, like to join a gym or buy a machine. It seems we benefit from having a healthy lifestyle -- like walking or biking to work, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, playing sports for fun, playing with our kids, running around with pets instead of just walking them, gardening, and so on. Our evolutionary ancestors probably lived like (though I can't cite sources) that and led our bodies to evolve to thrive best with that kind of activity. So many people are big on paleo diets. I wonder when a paleo lifestyle will become popular.
- acangiano 13y ago
  The paleo lifestyle actually goes further than just diet. For example, the 'Primal' approach is very popular: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/
  - leobelle 13y ago
    I studied anthropology as an undergrad and learned that hunter gathers actually eat very little meat, so that link seems incorrect about eating lots of meat. Animal protein was/is at best something like 30% of their diet. A lot of us have had agriculturally active ancestors for many, many generations. I don't doubt that many modern diets are completely unhealthy, but this paleo diet stuff seems a bit silly. Although if the evidence is contrary to what I think, I'll be convinced. I'm not yet though. It just strikes me as the latest fad.
    - pachydermic 13y ago
      I don't really have any training in this area (I didn't study anthropology, history, biology or nutrition in school), but while the implementation of paleo might be flawed the principle makes sense to me - eat what we evolved to eat, exercise like we evolved to exercise. At least that's how I see it. I'm not all to familiar with what it's actually like. I think that we could probably all go for eating less meat and a lot more fruits and vegetables. The flesh of other animals tastes so good though! Whenever I've been in shape I haven't stuck to any diet or strict regiment. It's pretty easy to loose weight (in principle, not in practice) if you do some moderate exercise (like take a run a few times a week, take the stairs, etc) and avoid restaurants and processed foods. I think when you start cooking for yourself, you'll end up eating a lot more raw "real" food and will find it hard to cook the really unhealthy stuff you might feel totally fine about ordering. It just kind of works itself out.
OscarCunningham 13y ago
Note that the fact "Lack of exercise kills roughly as many as smoking" says almost nothing about the danger of smoking compared to lack of exercise, unless you happen to know the rates of each.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  But it does say some about where we should be focusing our marginal effort in terms of encouraging/discouraging behaviors for optimal public health. How much of a difference we can make in each is the other piece missing, but that would involve looking at specific proposed interventions.
leobelle 13y ago
What's enough exercise? I walk 20 minutes a day. That should be good enough or do I need to turn into a fitness nut and work on strengthening every muscle in my body, eating raw nuts or whatever and run 5 miles a day? Like if the tradeoff for ultra-longevity is a shitty life of being obsessively active I think I'll pick a shorter life. If just a reasonable amount of exercise is ok and I don't have to work to look like I should be on the cover of a magazine, then I can do that. Edit: reasonable question gets downvoted.
- geoka9 13y ago
  There are so many steps in between walking 20 minutes a day and running 5 miles a day. Like, for example, I'm sure adding a 7 minute workout to your daily 20 minutes would do a world of good over the long run. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5704485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5704485
  - leobelle 13y ago
    Yeah, well those exercises are not at all appealing to me. Jumping jacks are not for overweight people. Crunches injure your back, etc. In fact, half these exercises look like they risk injury or look like they hurt something in the long run. If walking isn't good enough, I'm ok with that, but that's all I'm going to do. I imagine most people here are in their young twenties and don't understand what happens to bodies when they get older. There's just no way any of these activities are realistic. Calorie moderation and walking should be good enough.
    - geoka9 13y ago
      Yes, in that case, starting with calorie moderation is key. In fact, even if you don't do anything else, this alone should bring your weight down to managable levels where you can start doing exercises that look injury-prone now. But exercise would make it much easier, because it releases dopamines, which makes you feel good, which lowers your food craving. (I'm not in my early twenties and I've been overwheight for the most of my life.)
    - deleted 13y ago
zw123456 13y ago
Another aspect to exercise is the mental health aspect. I find that 60 minutes of cardiovascular activity clears my mind and I often come up with inspirations to a problem I am working on after working out. I think regular exercise helps maintain mental acuity and balance.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dllthomas 13y ago
  My understanding is that this is pretty well supported by studies, too - regular exercise leads to improved mental function.
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
It's always amazing how much hate exercise gets on the internet. The majority of the comments on here are - well this or that should count as exercise not actually having to go and do some specific "exercise" training. As someone who did not used to like to exercise and now do I think it's just a whole wad of cognitive dissonance for people who largely are out of shape (by the way that /= fat) and don't want to feel like they should spend time doing specific body improving exercises.
- Dewie 13y ago
  Really? Every time I see exercise brought up on HN, there are no shortage of people who are praising how exercise have changed their life. And if people are talking about leading a balanced and happy life, having an active life/exercising definitely gets brought up. It doesn't even have to be related for someone to bring it up: "Your dog died? I'm sorry about that. You should try exercising, that usually cheers me up."
- null_ptr 13y ago
  Some people plain don't like being told they could do things better, it's a matter of ego. You could argue that this negative reaction is inflated by the hyper-social internet culture we're all swimming in these days, where it's easy to compare each facet of your life to the collective's best. Not to mention that a lot of people associate exercise with body image, and that comes with its own boatload of issues.
- beachstartup 13y ago
  it's the same mental rut as people stuck in a terrible dead-end job, or in abusive / shitty relationships. this is not a value judgment on what type of job/relationship is good; these people are suffering. some are highly paid, or have the outward appearances of a good relationship. they have self-imposed a set of beliefs, a system of beliefs built up through unfortunate circumstances that have no bearing on wider reality, that limit their ability to improve their circumstances. it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. their mind will do all sorts of logical gymnastics to avoid admitting the truth or taking action. you can see it in this thread. people just make things up out of thin air, convinced of their truth. i was tempted to reply to a couple but then i saw your comment. it's like living in the matrix or something. it's so hard to explain because smart people can fall for it too. to this day, i find myself slipping into these self-defeating thought cycles every once in a while. maybe it's some kind of stockholm syndrome.
pjc50 13y ago
Oh great, now not exercising in bars is going to be banned :(
nazgulnarsil 13y ago
To combat the broscience prevalent in this thread on what a good exercise regime looks like, here are some reviews of exercise science on the relationship between different activities and health. Cardio, vigorous is better http://extremelongevity.net/2011/08/31/more-vigorous-exercise-associated-with-greater-longevity/ http://extremelongevity.net/2011/08/31/more-vigorous-exercis... Resistance training, how much is optimal? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373 How much total activity? http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078777 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... My take on all this: It seems like you want to be burning at least 1000 calories a week. There have been benefits reported at higher levels but the first 1k calories are guaranteed to get you a large proportion of the benefits. A routine of lifting twice a week and doing rigorous cardio 2-3 days a week puts you comfortably in the 1000-1500 calories burned range. To the people who are saying that the normal activity of everyday life is adequate, you are fooling yourself because you don't want to have to make changes. It's fine if you want to do that but please don't spread FUD to others who don't know any better. You are hurting them.
- dsuth 13y ago
  1000 calories a week seems a little bit low, but I'll admit that's just anecdotal - I'll do about 1kcal in a single 10 kilometre run. In terms of fitness and general health, I notice a big difference if I'm getting regular (ie. most days of the week, allowing for 1 or 2 rest days) exercise of about half an hour, and at least one longer run/ride/whatever, out to about an hour or so. Take any excuse to do things the hard way when you're exercising - push up hills, do sprints, to intervals etc, and you'll notice an amazing difference. Only downside to all this exercise is that you really need your 8 hours of sleep a night to recover.
  - runamok 13y ago
    Closer to 600 to 750 calories for a 10k but I agree 1000 calories for a week is quite low.
    - dsuth 13y ago
xacto75 13y ago
I've never enjoyed exercise. As a young child I would feel horrible after physical exertion. For years I heard things like: grow up, grow a pair, get used to it, you just need to toughen up, and so on. In my early teen years I ran long distance track but never felt well during or after a meet. I had to stop. Fast forward to my late 30s and I get diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (obstructive) [1]. It's genetic (I've been tested). At this point, even mild exercise over a period of time (a week or so) leads to congestive heart failure (CHF). I have little doubt I was suffering from lighter symptoms as far back as childhood. There are some people who cannot exercise. I so want to do something to help ease stress. For me, however, exercise == stress. If I lifted weights two days a week and ran for three, I'd end up in the hospital. As it is, I can walk a few times a week for about 30 minutes. There are zebras in the world. People should be careful about taking advice from discussion boards. See your doctor before starting any serious exercise program. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy
jfoster 13y ago
I got a Fitbit in January. I log all of the food I eat in the app and it (roughly) calculates how many calories I'm burning through walking or running, plus the passively burnt calories. It's now clear to me why people not measuring tend not to be able to lose weight. They simply underestimate how much they need to exercise, and overestimate how much they can eat. It's an easy trap to fall into. I've had days where eating one thing too many would blow my calorie budget unless I went for a half hour walk to compensate for it.
banachtarski 13y ago
Missing (2012) tag
aaron695 13y ago
I call BS. My understanding is exercise is not that healthy from a physical stand point. (Mental health perhaps) Continuous long term light strain is what I thought was beneficial. i.e. stand up desk, gardening etc This PRed article seems to just be taking exercise as a given the extrapolating from there rather than looking at the issue itself.
antirez 13y ago
Three years I don't miss a single week of workout: great that it creates long term benefits, but the short term ones are already incredible: I'm better at parenting (I can carry my daughter for hours without any side effect for example), more able to focus at work, sleep quality is better, stress level much lower, and I look better. All this for 40 minutes a day 5 days per week. The best deal of my life. My routine is monday,wednesday,friday: 15 min cardio + bench press and squat (using a power cage, high volume for both exercise). Tuesday,thursday: 20 min high intensity interval training + chinups or pullups or over the head press depending on the day. Hint: the time I use for the exercises is small compared to the amount of sets I try to do per session because I took the extreme way of an home office that has an included gym. Pic: http://antirez.com/misc/office.jpg http://antirez.com/misc/office.jpg Hint2: don't train to failure.
- obstacle1 13y ago
  Regarding hint 2, it depends on what you're aiming for and also personal style. Training to failure while rotating muscle groups on a 3-day cycle is a superb way to see results and increase strength quickly. It is also a much more rewarding way to train for some of us than to avoid pushing it.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    It also depends on the exercise. I will bench to failure any day if I have a spot, but I really don't like squat to failure.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Agreed, with a solid regime there will be an initial cost (DOMS and fatigue) but that only lasts for a week or so, then the benefits start to rack up very soon after. The best part is the order- the very first thing you earn is feeling better, which is the most important benefit to me! FWIW, I'm on the "stronglifts" program, plus chunks of 30-min medium-high intensity cardio where I can fit it.
- fsiefken 13y ago
  How much does your daughter weigh?
revelation 13y ago
In this thread, a large majority falls to realize that diet has little to do with exercise. As in, no diet can fix your sedentary car commute desk job health problems. The obsession with diet seems to be rooted in a desire to avoid exercise. I'd wish people would get a grip because the paleo and other nonsense is a breeding ground for the kind of blatant ignorance from which anti-vaccine and homeopathy hails.
gdiocarez 13y ago
Well, smoking or not. You will die anyway.
kolev 13y ago
I don't exercise as I yet have to see data showing me that exercise will increase lifespan by longer than the time invested doing it. Add the opportunity cost of the lost time to the picture as well. Same with sleep. A couple of hours less sleep is a pretty significant increase in real and meaningful lifespan. Will sleeping 8 hours increase your lifespan by a bigger percentage? No, not really. What I definitely think is stupid is overeating and then running to the gym to "burn" the excess calories. First, exercise makes you hungry. Second, are you aware of the vomitories in the Roman Empire - this isn't much different. Every expert will tell you that nutrition is more important than exercise. To me, studies about exercise are low quality as people who work out usually watch what they eat as well. Also, it could be the lower abdominal circumference of those who work out, which is a good health predictor. Anyway, I think walking 20-30 mins a day and having sex is what is natural to us. Anything else leads to tear and wear (especially, cartilage), increased metabolism, and aerobic exercise is a significant source of reactive oxygen species, so, you really need to load up on antioxidants before such workout. The slower your metabolism is, the longer you will potentially live (extend odds of getting cancer, hitting the Hayflick limit later, etc.). Intermittent fasting as a caloric restriction regimen seems to be the best option of life extension, which means, two meals a day, even better with one (Warrior Diet). Not having to worry about snacks and eating so often also extends your meaningful lifespan. I'm sure some gym nazis will downvote me, but whatever - I've invested enough time researching different alternatives of having longer and happier life and I know what's best. The only thing I know I should be doing better is stretching. I highly recommend The Longevity Project book - it debunks a lot of myths. Good Calories, Bad Calories is also great although it has a lot of enemies especially in the face of vegetarians and vegans. I believe in it's main point as I've increased my caloric intake by hundreds of calories a day, but my weight has actually decreased. I'm not saying all that Taubes says is right, but if there's one thing I got from the book is the realization that human metabolism is oversimplified, it really is not a simple arithmetic formula with just addition and subtraction. Hormones, for example, are very important, and you can talk to people with thyroid disease (hypo or hyper function) to hear how eating less can make you gain weight and how eating more can still make you lose weight. Due to environmental toxins (including those in foods such as endocrine disruptors, antibiotics, etc.), things are getting more and more complicated. Add the fact that our gut microbiota is totally out of whack and things get ugly.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Progress & a victory for the anit-smoking campaigns, in a sense. Just think how many people smoking was killing before it was demonized.
pyrrhotech 13y ago
Cue those mythical 80 hour a week workers...

162 points by arjn 13y ago

Another article to forward bosses with purchase orders for treadmill desks attached. :)

From 2012... Here's the referenced article from The Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60898-8/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...

hobs 13y ago

All I thought was, that's all? I would have expected lack of exercise killed many more.

raverbashing 13y ago

I find these kind of news worrying, but for the wrong reasons. This is more about pushing an agenda, maybe increasing health insurance premiums and blaming people. Rate of death is still 100% for humans, regardless of what you do. Sure, maybe it's healthier to work standing or I don't know, but the end result is the same. Not to mention health problems caused by exercise itself. Or even worse, weekend exercisers that go and overexert themselves then causing a heart attack.

sz4kerto 13y ago
Cognitive dissonance? >Not to mention health problems caused by exercise itself. Or even worse, weekend exercisers that go and overexert themselves then causing a heart attack. Well, it's extremely rare that people get heart attack because of excercise. It happens, but it's really rare. It's so rare that we can safely say: excercise is good for your health, and not having any excercise is bad, period. You can screw it up by not doing it right, however, overdoing it is almost impossible -- given you do it right. Running too much, for example, is almost impossible, if you get over the initial period of losing excess weight, and you drink and eat enough, etc.
- codelap 13y ago
  It's not very common, but it also isn't nearly as rare as you're making it sound. I'll look for the study, but IIRC, if you're over 50, and you vigorously exercise more than 2 hours a week, your chance of a heart attack is actually greater than if you vigorously exercise only a couple minutes a week. And I think it's around 1 in 15k. Which although not common, is far from almost impossible.
  - Retric 13y ago
    Did you find a link to that study? 2 hours of vigorous exercise a week can still represent a vary sedentary lifestyle. I would in no way be surprised that people who are over 50, overweight, and start a strenuous exercise program as if they where still in there 20's had a significant risk of heart attack. On the other had if there only looking at healthy people with long term exercise programs that's another issue entirely.
    - kbutler 13y ago
      http://running.competitor.com/2012/06/news/how-much-running-is-bad-for-your-heart_54331 http://running.competitor.com/2012/06/news/how-much-running-... "Repeated extreme exercise or long-distance racing can cause a buildup of scar tissue on the heart, which can lead to the development of patchy myocardial fibrosis in up to 12% of marathon runners. The effects of “chronic exercise” can also include premature aging of the heart, stiffening of the heart muscles, and an increase in arrhythmias and atrial fibrillation." "A 15-year observational study of 52,000 adults found that the highest degree of survival and health was found from running less than 20 miles per week, in runs of 30 to 45 minutes over three or four days, at about an 8:30 to 10:00 pace. The benefits decrease at amounts greater than that." "Originally, it appeared the race-related damage was less severe in people who trained over 45 miles per week, but O’Keefe says that doesn’t prove to always be true." As with most things, it appears that exercise is neither a panacea nor an unqualified good thing, but no doubt under-exercise is more prevalent than over-exercise...
      - irremediable 13y ago
codelap 13y ago
Living is after all, the number one cause of death with 100% fatality rate. I feel that we're living long enough now. Until we are able to get our resource abuses under control and eliminate poverty the world over, then ~75+/-10 is a reasonable expectation. And when will these studies factor in quality of life.
- mikeash 13y ago
  Technically, life in humans is only known to have about a 93% fatality rate, although it's likely the remaining 7% will succumb in time.
  - codelap 13y ago
    Funny. But don't use the word technically, because that's factually incorrect. A bug spray need not kill every mosquito in existence to prove that it has 100% fatality rate on mosquitoes.
    - tekacs 13y ago
      It depends on your model - no number of mosquitos killed can deductively prove (à la mathematical proof) that a bug spray will kill all mosquitoes. It can at best inductively prove it - the scientific approach, or alternately do what you called '100% rate' (the hidden words there being 'so far').
      - lutusp 13y ago
        Avoid use of the word "prove" in a discussion of science and scientific theories. Science can't prove theories true, it can only prove theories false. Philosopher David Hume expressed this best: “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.”
        indlebe 13y ago
nodata 13y ago
> Rate of death is still 100% for humans, regardless of what you do. Nobody is saying that humans don't die. The article is saying that something which has a very negative know effect on people's health: smoking, is just as bad as doing no exercise.
melling 13y ago
Your argument isn't quite as good as this one that I heard all the time as a kid: "People who don't smoke die of lung cancer too." Your argument probably falls more in line with the Jim Fixx excuse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fixx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Fixx I could write a long explanation on why you're wrong but I think it's better for you to figure it out for yourself.
arjie 13y ago
Wouldn't a more useful measure be deaths/100k per year? In general rate describes speed. What you describe is more like 'probability' of death. Checking the definition of mortality rate, this seems closer to the general use. About the only difference is Case Fatality Rate which should perhaps be called Case Fatality Ratio instead.
stefan_kendall 13y ago
Suppose there's a vaccine that has a 1 in a million chance to kill you. Also suppose you have a 1% chance to catch and die from a disease without the vaccine. You would take the vaccine every time.
- stillsut 13y ago
  Not necessarily. Let's apply that to the Herpes Virus known to be risk factor for cervical cancer. There is a greater than 1% you catch the disease. But, the risk you die from it is lower, maybe in 10,000? (Even the people who research it probably would have a hard time giving an estimate within an order of magnitude). So would a parent give it to their child at 1 in a million? Assuming every child is given this vaccine 10M+, there would be around a dozen known fatalities. Both parents and FDA would probably have big problems with this. (Disclaimer: this a hypothetical using a known condition but with made up facts. I take no position on "the vaccine debate" here.)

vezzy-fnord 13y ago

Half an hour of brisk walking five times a week would do the trick. Good to know I'm satisfying the bare minimum for not dying.

TillE 13y ago
That lines up pretty well with the recommendation of 7,000 steps per day: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/tips-for-getting-exercise-into-your-life/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/tips-for-getting... Fitbit's default goal of 10,000 seems to work well, and I walk very fast everywhere as long as there's not ice on the ground.

undoware 13y ago

This is why I always jog with a cigarette.

sergiotapia 13y ago
The math checks out. You're good to go.
jbuzbee 13y ago
No joke - One of my friends was amazed the day he was at another friend's house and noticed that she had one of those great-big ashtrays attached to her treadmill to allow walking and smoking at the same time...
visakanv 13y ago
I used to take long walks with my cigarettes sometimes. And I knew guys in the army who'd chug cigarettes before and after running.

spodek 13y ago

Calling activity that raises your heart rate exercise makes it seem like something you have to go out of your way to do, like to join a gym or buy a machine. It seems we benefit from having a healthy lifestyle -- like walking or biking to work, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, playing sports for fun, playing with our kids, running around with pets instead of just walking them, gardening, and so on. Our evolutionary ancestors probably lived like (though I can't cite sources) that and led our bodies to evolve to thrive best with that kind of activity. So many people are big on paleo diets. I wonder when a paleo lifestyle will become popular.

acangiano 13y ago
The paleo lifestyle actually goes further than just diet. For example, the 'Primal' approach is very popular: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/
- leobelle 13y ago
  I studied anthropology as an undergrad and learned that hunter gathers actually eat very little meat, so that link seems incorrect about eating lots of meat. Animal protein was/is at best something like 30% of their diet. A lot of us have had agriculturally active ancestors for many, many generations. I don't doubt that many modern diets are completely unhealthy, but this paleo diet stuff seems a bit silly. Although if the evidence is contrary to what I think, I'll be convinced. I'm not yet though. It just strikes me as the latest fad.
  - pachydermic 13y ago
    I don't really have any training in this area (I didn't study anthropology, history, biology or nutrition in school), but while the implementation of paleo might be flawed the principle makes sense to me - eat what we evolved to eat, exercise like we evolved to exercise. At least that's how I see it. I'm not all to familiar with what it's actually like. I think that we could probably all go for eating less meat and a lot more fruits and vegetables. The flesh of other animals tastes so good though! Whenever I've been in shape I haven't stuck to any diet or strict regiment. It's pretty easy to loose weight (in principle, not in practice) if you do some moderate exercise (like take a run a few times a week, take the stairs, etc) and avoid restaurants and processed foods. I think when you start cooking for yourself, you'll end up eating a lot more raw "real" food and will find it hard to cook the really unhealthy stuff you might feel totally fine about ordering. It just kind of works itself out.

OscarCunningham 13y ago

Note that the fact "Lack of exercise kills roughly as many as smoking" says almost nothing about the danger of smoking compared to lack of exercise, unless you happen to know the rates of each.

dllthomas 13y ago
But it does say some about where we should be focusing our marginal effort in terms of encouraging/discouraging behaviors for optimal public health. How much of a difference we can make in each is the other piece missing, but that would involve looking at specific proposed interventions.

leobelle 13y ago

What's enough exercise? I walk 20 minutes a day. That should be good enough or do I need to turn into a fitness nut and work on strengthening every muscle in my body, eating raw nuts or whatever and run 5 miles a day? Like if the tradeoff for ultra-longevity is a shitty life of being obsessively active I think I'll pick a shorter life. If just a reasonable amount of exercise is ok and I don't have to work to look like I should be on the cover of a magazine, then I can do that. Edit: reasonable question gets downvoted.

geoka9 13y ago
There are so many steps in between walking 20 minutes a day and running 5 miles a day. Like, for example, I'm sure adding a 7 minute workout to your daily 20 minutes would do a world of good over the long run. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5704485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5704485
- leobelle 13y ago
  Yeah, well those exercises are not at all appealing to me. Jumping jacks are not for overweight people. Crunches injure your back, etc. In fact, half these exercises look like they risk injury or look like they hurt something in the long run. If walking isn't good enough, I'm ok with that, but that's all I'm going to do. I imagine most people here are in their young twenties and don't understand what happens to bodies when they get older. There's just no way any of these activities are realistic. Calorie moderation and walking should be good enough.
  - geoka9 13y ago
    Yes, in that case, starting with calorie moderation is key. In fact, even if you don't do anything else, this alone should bring your weight down to managable levels where you can start doing exercises that look injury-prone now. But exercise would make it much easier, because it releases dopamines, which makes you feel good, which lowers your food craving. (I'm not in my early twenties and I've been overwheight for the most of my life.)
  - deleted 13y ago

zw123456 13y ago

Another aspect to exercise is the mental health aspect. I find that 60 minutes of cardiovascular activity clears my mind and I often come up with inspirations to a problem I am working on after working out. I think regular exercise helps maintain mental acuity and balance.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dllthomas 13y ago
My understanding is that this is pretty well supported by studies, too - regular exercise leads to improved mental function.

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

It's always amazing how much hate exercise gets on the internet. The majority of the comments on here are - well this or that should count as exercise not actually having to go and do some specific "exercise" training. As someone who did not used to like to exercise and now do I think it's just a whole wad of cognitive dissonance for people who largely are out of shape (by the way that /= fat) and don't want to feel like they should spend time doing specific body improving exercises.

Dewie 13y ago
Really? Every time I see exercise brought up on HN, there are no shortage of people who are praising how exercise have changed their life. And if people are talking about leading a balanced and happy life, having an active life/exercising definitely gets brought up. It doesn't even have to be related for someone to bring it up: "Your dog died? I'm sorry about that. You should try exercising, that usually cheers me up."
null_ptr 13y ago
Some people plain don't like being told they could do things better, it's a matter of ego. You could argue that this negative reaction is inflated by the hyper-social internet culture we're all swimming in these days, where it's easy to compare each facet of your life to the collective's best. Not to mention that a lot of people associate exercise with body image, and that comes with its own boatload of issues.
beachstartup 13y ago
it's the same mental rut as people stuck in a terrible dead-end job, or in abusive / shitty relationships. this is not a value judgment on what type of job/relationship is good; these people are suffering. some are highly paid, or have the outward appearances of a good relationship. they have self-imposed a set of beliefs, a system of beliefs built up through unfortunate circumstances that have no bearing on wider reality, that limit their ability to improve their circumstances. it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. their mind will do all sorts of logical gymnastics to avoid admitting the truth or taking action. you can see it in this thread. people just make things up out of thin air, convinced of their truth. i was tempted to reply to a couple but then i saw your comment. it's like living in the matrix or something. it's so hard to explain because smart people can fall for it too. to this day, i find myself slipping into these self-defeating thought cycles every once in a while. maybe it's some kind of stockholm syndrome.

pjc50 13y ago

Oh great, now not exercising in bars is going to be banned :(

nazgulnarsil 13y ago

To combat the broscience prevalent in this thread on what a good exercise regime looks like, here are some reviews of exercise science on the relationship between different activities and health. Cardio, vigorous is better http://extremelongevity.net/2011/08/31/more-vigorous-exercise-associated-with-greater-longevity/ http://extremelongevity.net/2011/08/31/more-vigorous-exercis... Resistance training, how much is optimal? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373 How much total activity? http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078777 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... My take on all this: It seems like you want to be burning at least 1000 calories a week. There have been benefits reported at higher levels but the first 1k calories are guaranteed to get you a large proportion of the benefits. A routine of lifting twice a week and doing rigorous cardio 2-3 days a week puts you comfortably in the 1000-1500 calories burned range. To the people who are saying that the normal activity of everyday life is adequate, you are fooling yourself because you don't want to have to make changes. It's fine if you want to do that but please don't spread FUD to others who don't know any better. You are hurting them.

dsuth 13y ago
1000 calories a week seems a little bit low, but I'll admit that's just anecdotal - I'll do about 1kcal in a single 10 kilometre run. In terms of fitness and general health, I notice a big difference if I'm getting regular (ie. most days of the week, allowing for 1 or 2 rest days) exercise of about half an hour, and at least one longer run/ride/whatever, out to about an hour or so. Take any excuse to do things the hard way when you're exercising - push up hills, do sprints, to intervals etc, and you'll notice an amazing difference. Only downside to all this exercise is that you really need your 8 hours of sleep a night to recover.
- runamok 13y ago
  Closer to 600 to 750 calories for a 10k but I agree 1000 calories for a week is quite low.
  - dsuth 13y ago

xacto75 13y ago

I've never enjoyed exercise. As a young child I would feel horrible after physical exertion. For years I heard things like: grow up, grow a pair, get used to it, you just need to toughen up, and so on. In my early teen years I ran long distance track but never felt well during or after a meet. I had to stop. Fast forward to my late 30s and I get diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (obstructive) [1]. It's genetic (I've been tested). At this point, even mild exercise over a period of time (a week or so) leads to congestive heart failure (CHF). I have little doubt I was suffering from lighter symptoms as far back as childhood. There are some people who cannot exercise. I so want to do something to help ease stress. For me, however, exercise == stress. If I lifted weights two days a week and ran for three, I'd end up in the hospital. As it is, I can walk a few times a week for about 30 minutes. There are zebras in the world. People should be careful about taking advice from discussion boards. See your doctor before starting any serious exercise program. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy

jfoster 13y ago

I got a Fitbit in January. I log all of the food I eat in the app and it (roughly) calculates how many calories I'm burning through walking or running, plus the passively burnt calories. It's now clear to me why people not measuring tend not to be able to lose weight. They simply underestimate how much they need to exercise, and overestimate how much they can eat. It's an easy trap to fall into. I've had days where eating one thing too many would blow my calorie budget unless I went for a half hour walk to compensate for it.

banachtarski 13y ago

Missing (2012) tag

aaron695 13y ago

I call BS. My understanding is exercise is not that healthy from a physical stand point. (Mental health perhaps) Continuous long term light strain is what I thought was beneficial. i.e. stand up desk, gardening etc This PRed article seems to just be taking exercise as a given the extrapolating from there rather than looking at the issue itself.

antirez 13y ago

Three years I don't miss a single week of workout: great that it creates long term benefits, but the short term ones are already incredible: I'm better at parenting (I can carry my daughter for hours without any side effect for example), more able to focus at work, sleep quality is better, stress level much lower, and I look better. All this for 40 minutes a day 5 days per week. The best deal of my life. My routine is monday,wednesday,friday: 15 min cardio + bench press and squat (using a power cage, high volume for both exercise). Tuesday,thursday: 20 min high intensity interval training + chinups or pullups or over the head press depending on the day. Hint: the time I use for the exercises is small compared to the amount of sets I try to do per session because I took the extreme way of an home office that has an included gym. Pic: http://antirez.com/misc/office.jpg http://antirez.com/misc/office.jpg Hint2: don't train to failure.

obstacle1 13y ago
Regarding hint 2, it depends on what you're aiming for and also personal style. Training to failure while rotating muscle groups on a 3-day cycle is a superb way to see results and increase strength quickly. It is also a much more rewarding way to train for some of us than to avoid pushing it.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  It also depends on the exercise. I will bench to failure any day if I have a spot, but I really don't like squat to failure.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Agreed, with a solid regime there will be an initial cost (DOMS and fatigue) but that only lasts for a week or so, then the benefits start to rack up very soon after. The best part is the order- the very first thing you earn is feeling better, which is the most important benefit to me! FWIW, I'm on the "stronglifts" program, plus chunks of 30-min medium-high intensity cardio where I can fit it.
fsiefken 13y ago
How much does your daughter weigh?

revelation 13y ago

In this thread, a large majority falls to realize that diet has little to do with exercise. As in, no diet can fix your sedentary car commute desk job health problems. The obsession with diet seems to be rooted in a desire to avoid exercise. I'd wish people would get a grip because the paleo and other nonsense is a breeding ground for the kind of blatant ignorance from which anti-vaccine and homeopathy hails.

gdiocarez 13y ago

Well, smoking or not. You will die anyway.

kolev 13y ago

I don't exercise as I yet have to see data showing me that exercise will increase lifespan by longer than the time invested doing it. Add the opportunity cost of the lost time to the picture as well. Same with sleep. A couple of hours less sleep is a pretty significant increase in real and meaningful lifespan. Will sleeping 8 hours increase your lifespan by a bigger percentage? No, not really. What I definitely think is stupid is overeating and then running to the gym to "burn" the excess calories. First, exercise makes you hungry. Second, are you aware of the vomitories in the Roman Empire - this isn't much different. Every expert will tell you that nutrition is more important than exercise. To me, studies about exercise are low quality as people who work out usually watch what they eat as well. Also, it could be the lower abdominal circumference of those who work out, which is a good health predictor. Anyway, I think walking 20-30 mins a day and having sex is what is natural to us. Anything else leads to tear and wear (especially, cartilage), increased metabolism, and aerobic exercise is a significant source of reactive oxygen species, so, you really need to load up on antioxidants before such workout. The slower your metabolism is, the longer you will potentially live (extend odds of getting cancer, hitting the Hayflick limit later, etc.). Intermittent fasting as a caloric restriction regimen seems to be the best option of life extension, which means, two meals a day, even better with one (Warrior Diet). Not having to worry about snacks and eating so often also extends your meaningful lifespan. I'm sure some gym nazis will downvote me, but whatever - I've invested enough time researching different alternatives of having longer and happier life and I know what's best. The only thing I know I should be doing better is stretching. I highly recommend The Longevity Project book - it debunks a lot of myths. Good Calories, Bad Calories is also great although it has a lot of enemies especially in the face of vegetarians and vegans. I believe in it's main point as I've increased my caloric intake by hundreds of calories a day, but my weight has actually decreased. I'm not saying all that Taubes says is right, but if there's one thing I got from the book is the realization that human metabolism is oversimplified, it really is not a simple arithmetic formula with just addition and subtraction. Hormones, for example, are very important, and you can talk to people with thyroid disease (hypo or hyper function) to hear how eating less can make you gain weight and how eating more can still make you lose weight. Due to environmental toxins (including those in foods such as endocrine disruptors, antibiotics, etc.), things are getting more and more complicated. Add the fact that our gut microbiota is totally out of whack and things get ugly.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Progress & a victory for the anit-smoking campaigns, in a sense. Just think how many people smoking was killing before it was demonized.

pyrrhotech 13y ago

Cue those mythical 80 hour a week workers...