Not exercising worse for your health than smoking, diabetes and heart disease, study reveals
Replies
-
I saw this article a couple days ago. My main motivation for working out is to remain healthy and independent as I age and as far as I'm concerned that's all the motivation I need. I mentioned this in another thread but my grandma is an identical twin sister and my grandma lived a fairly unhealthy lifestyle with no exercise (as far as my mom could recall) while her twin sister was very active and still is to this day. The difference in their health is like night and day.8
-
Woot! So, as long as my 89-yo mom keeps getting her hair colored, she'll never die! ( ...right?)Why does it matter “why” someone is unfit? The study is pretty clear: lack of fitness correlates with risk of death. The “why” may inform interventions but doesn’t impact the outcome interaction, that lack of fitness may predict risk of death.
Some people are more likely to be less fit, and die younger, due to health problems. They just happen to lose fitness as their health condition progresses.
I'm not saying that lack of fitness does not correlate with risk of death. I'm saying that there may not be much causation. Fitness may drop off if someone has a chronic, possibly life threatening condition. Those without those problems are more likely to be able to achieve a greater level of fitness. IMO
For (a more extreme) example, retirement, wrinkles and grey hair also correlate with an increased risk of death. There's no causation there.
The correlation/causation joke going around when I was in college went like this:
Multiple studies have shown that the number of mules in a given locality is inversely related to the number of university professors in that same locality. So now people are bringing mules in in the hope of driving the university professors out.4 -
Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »
Woot! So, as long as my 89-yo mom keeps getting her hair colored, she'll never die! ( ...right?)Why does it matter “why” someone is unfit? The study is pretty clear: lack of fitness correlates with risk of death. The “why” may inform interventions but doesn’t impact the outcome interaction, that lack of fitness may predict risk of death.
Some people are more likely to be less fit, and die younger, due to health problems. They just happen to lose fitness as their health condition progresses.
I'm not saying that lack of fitness does not correlate with risk of death. I'm saying that there may not be much causation. Fitness may drop off if someone has a chronic, possibly life threatening condition. Those without those problems are more likely to be able to achieve a greater level of fitness. IMO
For (a more extreme) example, retirement, wrinkles and grey hair also correlate with an increased risk of death. There's no causation there.
The correlation/causation joke going around when I was in college went like this:
Multiple studies have shown that the number of mules in a given locality is inversely related to the number of university professors in that same locality. So now people are bringing mules in in the hope of driving the university professors out.
My favorite correlation/causation joke is the one where someone did a study showing that older people with higher grip strength lived longer, then a bunch of aging inactive people started squeezing tennis balls to live longer.
Wait, what? That wasn't a joke, it was real?!!?4 -
Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »
Woot! So, as long as my 89-yo mom keeps getting her hair colored, she'll never die! ( ...right?)Why does it matter “why” someone is unfit? The study is pretty clear: lack of fitness correlates with risk of death. The “why” may inform interventions but doesn’t impact the outcome interaction, that lack of fitness may predict risk of death.
Some people are more likely to be less fit, and die younger, due to health problems. They just happen to lose fitness as their health condition progresses.
I'm not saying that lack of fitness does not correlate with risk of death. I'm saying that there may not be much causation. Fitness may drop off if someone has a chronic, possibly life threatening condition. Those without those problems are more likely to be able to achieve a greater level of fitness. IMO
For (a more extreme) example, retirement, wrinkles and grey hair also correlate with an increased risk of death. There's no causation there.
The correlation/causation joke going around when I was in college went like this:
Multiple studies have shown that the number of mules in a given locality is inversely related to the number of university professors in that same locality. So now people are bringing mules in in the hope of driving the university professors out.
I'm starting to grey in my 40s. I'm doomed....2 -
Not if Lady Clairol has anything to say about it...Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »
Woot! So, as long as my 89-yo mom keeps getting her hair colored, she'll never die! ( ...right?)Why does it matter “why” someone is unfit? The study is pretty clear: lack of fitness correlates with risk of death. The “why” may inform interventions but doesn’t impact the outcome interaction, that lack of fitness may predict risk of death.
Some people are more likely to be less fit, and die younger, due to health problems. They just happen to lose fitness as their health condition progresses.
I'm not saying that lack of fitness does not correlate with risk of death. I'm saying that there may not be much causation. Fitness may drop off if someone has a chronic, possibly life threatening condition. Those without those problems are more likely to be able to achieve a greater level of fitness. IMO
For (a more extreme) example, retirement, wrinkles and grey hair also correlate with an increased risk of death. There's no causation there.
The correlation/causation joke going around when I was in college went like this:
Multiple studies have shown that the number of mules in a given locality is inversely related to the number of university professors in that same locality. So now people are bringing mules in in the hope of driving the university professors out.
I'm starting to grey in my 40s. I'm doomed....
2 -
I went grey in my early 30s ... at a time I was peaking with my exercise and fitness in general.1
-
NorthCascades wrote: »I think I'm probably not being clear. All I'm saying is that correlation studies usually get translated incorrectly to the public who often take away the wrong message. I'm not really taking issue with the study, more with the article and the title in addition to theorizing about the underlying why but I seem to be posting faster than my brain can keep up so I'm just going to stop
I don't disagree with anything you guys are saying, if my posts didn't convey that, my bad.
Are you saying that "exercise is good for you" is the wrong message?
Some people I know would have you believe that.2 -
I appreciate the causation/correlation comment. People with conditions that prevent exercise (or contraindicate it) may die more. Are their deaths due to the lack of exercise or the conditions that prevented exercise? The study didn’t examine that question so we don’t know. No one is saying exercise is a bad idea.
In a similar vein, I’m particularly annoyed by “studies” promoted by the fish industry. They correlate eating fish x times per week to an astonishing array of outcomes, from longevity to fetal academic achievement. Some studies correct for some factors, but not wealth. Fish is expensive! Wealth has numerous positive outcomes— longevity, educational attainment, less stress, better sleep, better healthcare. I am utterly unconvinced fish can take credit for all this. Nothing against fish. I like it, too. Ok, that was a bit off topic. Apologies.5 -
Well i suppose it may be worse to being out of shape person than a physically fit diabetic....but honesty the majority of diabetics aren't physically fit so its kind of a moot point.4
-
I saw this study a few days ago and it was a kick in the butt for both my wife and I. We've known that being out of shape was bad for us, but it really hit home how important getting back into physical shape is.2
-
Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »
Woot! So, as long as my 89-yo mom keeps getting her hair colored, she'll never die! ( ...right?)Why does it matter “why” someone is unfit? The study is pretty clear: lack of fitness correlates with risk of death. The “why” may inform interventions but doesn’t impact the outcome interaction, that lack of fitness may predict risk of death.
Some people are more likely to be less fit, and die younger, due to health problems. They just happen to lose fitness as their health condition progresses.
I'm not saying that lack of fitness does not correlate with risk of death. I'm saying that there may not be much causation. Fitness may drop off if someone has a chronic, possibly life threatening condition. Those without those problems are more likely to be able to achieve a greater level of fitness. IMO
For (a more extreme) example, retirement, wrinkles and grey hair also correlate with an increased risk of death. There's no causation there.
The correlation/causation joke going around when I was in college went like this:
Multiple studies have shown that the number of mules in a given locality is inversely related to the number of university professors in that same locality. So now people are bringing mules in in the hope of driving the university professors out.
My favorite correlation/causation joke is the one where someone did a study showing that older people with higher grip strength lived longer, then a bunch of aging inactive people started squeezing tennis balls to live longer.
Wait, what? That wasn't a joke, it was real?!!?
My favorite isn't really a joke it's an observation, but is along the same lines.
Not everything that runs in families (correlation) is genetic ("cause" - or not). Like recipes, fortunes, and heirlooms.
Really doesn't apply in this case. But I always thought it was a clever and obvious cautionary tale in general.3 -
Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »
Woot! So, as long as my 89-yo mom keeps getting her hair colored, she'll never die! ( ...right?)Why does it matter “why” someone is unfit? The study is pretty clear: lack of fitness correlates with risk of death. The “why” may inform interventions but doesn’t impact the outcome interaction, that lack of fitness may predict risk of death.
Some people are more likely to be less fit, and die younger, due to health problems. They just happen to lose fitness as their health condition progresses.
I'm not saying that lack of fitness does not correlate with risk of death. I'm saying that there may not be much causation. Fitness may drop off if someone has a chronic, possibly life threatening condition. Those without those problems are more likely to be able to achieve a greater level of fitness. IMO
For (a more extreme) example, retirement, wrinkles and grey hair also correlate with an increased risk of death. There's no causation there.
The correlation/causation joke going around when I was in college went like this:
Multiple studies have shown that the number of mules in a given locality is inversely related to the number of university professors in that same locality. So now people are bringing mules in in the hope of driving the university professors out.
My favorite correlation/causation joke is the one where someone did a study showing that older people with higher grip strength lived longer, then a bunch of aging inactive people started squeezing tennis balls to live longer.
Wait, what? That wasn't a joke, it was real?!!?
Correlation is not causation.2 -
OldAssDude wrote: »Instead of sitting here over analyzing something that i already know to be true, i decided to do something much more important.
I got up off my lazy butt and did a 5.56 mile power walk.
And (not to my surprise), upon my return i can see folks still sitting here over analyzing this.
Now, i'm going to go to the super market, pick up some fresh salmon, shrimp, and scallops, and cook it for dinner with some rice and vegetables. And yes, i'm gonna drink a can of pineapple soda (because i friggin love that stuff).
After i eat, i'm going to check this thread again, and i'm pretty sure people will still be over analyzing this.
Then, i'm going to find a good horror movie on NetFlix, and watch it (because i love friggin horror movies). And maybe have some chips and dip or something.
After that, i'm going to check this thread again.
And guess what?
I bet people will still be over analyzing this.
My point is this...
GET UP OFF YOUR BUTT...
DO SOME EXERCISE...
STOP OVER ANALYZING STUFF THAT IS ALREADY KNOWN...
AND YOU'LL PROBABLY LIVE LONGER.
You know who spent significantly more time than everyone you're disparaging here likely sitting (though maybe standing) doing researching and analyzing this data? The authors of this study (and likely their interns and/or research assistants). Analyzing isn't bad, it's why you're still alive. Demonizing research isn't actually helpful to anyone, yourself included.
Never mind the pesky fact that you have no idea if people had already "gotten off their butts" earlier in the day...11 -
Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »
Woot! So, as long as my 89-yo mom keeps getting her hair colored, she'll never die! ( ...right?)Why does it matter “why” someone is unfit? The study is pretty clear: lack of fitness correlates with risk of death. The “why” may inform interventions but doesn’t impact the outcome interaction, that lack of fitness may predict risk of death.
Some people are more likely to be less fit, and die younger, due to health problems. They just happen to lose fitness as their health condition progresses.
I'm not saying that lack of fitness does not correlate with risk of death. I'm saying that there may not be much causation. Fitness may drop off if someone has a chronic, possibly life threatening condition. Those without those problems are more likely to be able to achieve a greater level of fitness. IMO
For (a more extreme) example, retirement, wrinkles and grey hair also correlate with an increased risk of death. There's no causation there.
The correlation/causation joke going around when I was in college went like this:
Multiple studies have shown that the number of mules in a given locality is inversely related to the number of university professors in that same locality. So now people are bringing mules in in the hope of driving the university professors out.
My favorite correlation/causation joke is the one where someone did a study showing that older people with higher grip strength lived longer, then a bunch of aging inactive people started squeezing tennis balls to live longer.
Wait, what? That wasn't a joke, it was real?!!?
Correlation is not causation.
And the debate goes full circle yet again. Few, if any, are arguing that point. The whole thing is about correlation because it is such a strong one.6 -
OldAssDude wrote: »Instead of sitting here over analyzing something that i already know to be true, i decided to do something much more important.
I got up off my lazy butt and did a 5.56 mile power walk.
And (not to my surprise), upon my return i can see folks still sitting here over analyzing this.
Now, i'm going to go to the super market, pick up some fresh salmon, shrimp, and scallops, and cook it for dinner with some rice and vegetables. And yes, i'm gonna drink a can of pineapple soda (because i friggin love that stuff).
After i eat, i'm going to check this thread again, and i'm pretty sure people will still be over analyzing this.
Then, i'm going to find a good horror movie on NetFlix, and watch it (because i love friggin horror movies). And maybe have some chips and dip or something.
After that, i'm going to check this thread again.
And guess what?
I bet people will still be over analyzing this.
My point is this...
GET UP OFF YOUR BUTT...
DO SOME EXERCISE...
STOP OVER ANALYZING STUFF THAT IS ALREADY KNOWN...
AND YOU'LL PROBABLY LIVE LONGER.
You know who spent significantly more time than everyone you're disparaging here likely sitting (though maybe standing) doing researching and analyzing this data? The authors of this study (and likely their interns and/or research assistants). Analyzing isn't bad, it's why you're still alive. Demonizing research isn't actually helpful to anyone, yourself included.
Never mind the pesky fact that you have no idea if people had already "gotten off their butts" earlier in the day...
There is nothing wrong with analyzing. But when people take something that has already been analyzed, and argue back and forth about it, that to me is over analyzing it.
And frankly, this has probably been known for a long long time.
I have no idea who has "gotten off their butts", but it might be fair to say that most people who are bickering back and forth about this are less likely to.5 -
OldAssDude wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »Instead of sitting here over analyzing something that i already know to be true, i decided to do something much more important.
I got up off my lazy butt and did a 5.56 mile power walk.
And (not to my surprise), upon my return i can see folks still sitting here over analyzing this.
Now, i'm going to go to the super market, pick up some fresh salmon, shrimp, and scallops, and cook it for dinner with some rice and vegetables. And yes, i'm gonna drink a can of pineapple soda (because i friggin love that stuff).
After i eat, i'm going to check this thread again, and i'm pretty sure people will still be over analyzing this.
Then, i'm going to find a good horror movie on NetFlix, and watch it (because i love friggin horror movies). And maybe have some chips and dip or something.
After that, i'm going to check this thread again.
And guess what?
I bet people will still be over analyzing this.
My point is this...
GET UP OFF YOUR BUTT...
DO SOME EXERCISE...
STOP OVER ANALYZING STUFF THAT IS ALREADY KNOWN...
AND YOU'LL PROBABLY LIVE LONGER.
You know who spent significantly more time than everyone you're disparaging here likely sitting (though maybe standing) doing researching and analyzing this data? The authors of this study (and likely their interns and/or research assistants). Analyzing isn't bad, it's why you're still alive. Demonizing research isn't actually helpful to anyone, yourself included.
Never mind the pesky fact that you have no idea if people had already "gotten off their butts" earlier in the day...
There is nothing wrong with analyzing. But when people take something that has already been analyzed, and argue back and forth about it, that to me is over analyzing it.
And frankly, this has probably been known for a long long time.
I have no idea who has "gotten off their butts", but it might be fair to say that most people who are bickering back and forth about this are less likely to.
To include you? You can't possibly know what every user here is doing when they sign off. Maybe they're popping in during a lull throughout the workday when they wouldn't be able to get off their butt and go do something you consider worthwhile anyway.6 -
OldAssDude wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »Instead of sitting here over analyzing something that i already know to be true, i decided to do something much more important.
I got up off my lazy butt and did a 5.56 mile power walk.
And (not to my surprise), upon my return i can see folks still sitting here over analyzing this.
Now, i'm going to go to the super market, pick up some fresh salmon, shrimp, and scallops, and cook it for dinner with some rice and vegetables. And yes, i'm gonna drink a can of pineapple soda (because i friggin love that stuff).
After i eat, i'm going to check this thread again, and i'm pretty sure people will still be over analyzing this.
Then, i'm going to find a good horror movie on NetFlix, and watch it (because i love friggin horror movies). And maybe have some chips and dip or something.
After that, i'm going to check this thread again.
And guess what?
I bet people will still be over analyzing this.
My point is this...
GET UP OFF YOUR BUTT...
DO SOME EXERCISE...
STOP OVER ANALYZING STUFF THAT IS ALREADY KNOWN...
AND YOU'LL PROBABLY LIVE LONGER.
You know who spent significantly more time than everyone you're disparaging here likely sitting (though maybe standing) doing researching and analyzing this data? The authors of this study (and likely their interns and/or research assistants). Analyzing isn't bad, it's why you're still alive. Demonizing research isn't actually helpful to anyone, yourself included.
Never mind the pesky fact that you have no idea if people had already "gotten off their butts" earlier in the day...
There is nothing wrong with analyzing. But when people take something that has already been analyzed, and argue back and forth about it, that to me is over analyzing it.
And frankly, this has probably been known for a long long time.
I have no idea who has "gotten off their butts", but it might be fair to say that most people who are bickering back and forth about this are less likely to.
To include you? You can't possibly know what every user here is doing when they sign off. Maybe they're popping in during a lull throughout the workday when they wouldn't be able to get off their butt and go do something you consider worthwhile anyway.
Oh the shame; sometimes when I have some free time, I do something besides exercise.
I agree with you.
I do exercise frequently and currently in very good condition but I don't exercise every free moment.5 -
OldAssDude wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »Instead of sitting here over analyzing something that i already know to be true, i decided to do something much more important.
I got up off my lazy butt and did a 5.56 mile power walk.
And (not to my surprise), upon my return i can see folks still sitting here over analyzing this.
Now, i'm going to go to the super market, pick up some fresh salmon, shrimp, and scallops, and cook it for dinner with some rice and vegetables. And yes, i'm gonna drink a can of pineapple soda (because i friggin love that stuff).
After i eat, i'm going to check this thread again, and i'm pretty sure people will still be over analyzing this.
Then, i'm going to find a good horror movie on NetFlix, and watch it (because i love friggin horror movies). And maybe have some chips and dip or something.
After that, i'm going to check this thread again.
And guess what?
I bet people will still be over analyzing this.
My point is this...
GET UP OFF YOUR BUTT...
DO SOME EXERCISE...
STOP OVER ANALYZING STUFF THAT IS ALREADY KNOWN...
AND YOU'LL PROBABLY LIVE LONGER.
You know who spent significantly more time than everyone you're disparaging here likely sitting (though maybe standing) doing researching and analyzing this data? The authors of this study (and likely their interns and/or research assistants). Analyzing isn't bad, it's why you're still alive. Demonizing research isn't actually helpful to anyone, yourself included.
Never mind the pesky fact that you have no idea if people had already "gotten off their butts" earlier in the day...
There is nothing wrong with analyzing. But when people take something that has already been analyzed, and argue back and forth about it, that to me is over analyzing it.
And frankly, this has probably been known for a long long time.
I have no idea who has "gotten off their butts", but it might be fair to say that most people who are bickering back and forth about this are less likely to.
At that rate we should just stop researching anything. We also definitely should do repeats of research protocols to verify that specific methods work or that findings are valid (tongue firmly in cheek). That said, I don't know about you, but I burned 500 calories working out this morning (as calculated with power meter data) and finished my workout/ride at around 7:30am. I'm not sure why there would be any correlation between "bickering back and forth" and not exercising. Clearly someone should research this 6 -
In a similar vein, I’m particularly annoyed by “studies” promoted by the fish industry. They correlate eating fish x times per week to an astonishing array of outcomes, from longevity to fetal academic achievement. Some studies correct for some factors, but not wealth. Fish is expensive! Wealth has numerous positive outcomes— longevity, educational attainment, less stress, better sleep, better healthcare. I am utterly unconvinced fish can take credit for all this. Nothing against fish. I like it, too. Ok, that was a bit off topic. Apologies.
I know how expensive fish can be for people who live inland and it has to be shipped a long way. I'm gratful to be living where a kilo of sardines is one dollar and two large slices of fresh tuna come to ( 700 grams) 7 dollars. Tuna and sword fish are expensive everywhere but there are so many more healthy small fish that are extremely cheap to eat. The smaller the fish usually the less the load of metals it will have.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions