Why you should NOT workout

YES it is true.....and you become a walker once you hit the maximum number of beats

Couldn't really be bothered.

Rather have lived to the fullest and live a year shorter than have a boring life and live longer.
Besides, I believe an active lifestyle with healthy foods do help for a longer life.

what.

To be honest I don't work out in an attempt to prolong my life. I workout because I enjoy working out. You could die crossing the road tomorrow! Doesn't mean you will stop crossing roads! Staying inside by yourself with your doors bolted you will avoid being run over, murdered, attacked etc but that isn't a life.
Life is to live and to live to the fullest. Working out means whatever time you do have will most likely be BETTER quality time because you will have more confidence and will feel better about yourself.
Also the fitter you are the lower your resting heart rate. You don't workout 24-7 so overall surely that will result in your heart rate beating less beats not more over time?

Ok so lets think about it. You buy a clock....you take super care of it, you keep it in a dust proof, vacuumed container. do you really think it will work longer than the identicant one you bought that gathered dust? i think not

are you comparing my ticker to a TICKER! well I never...!

I read a site that was promoting this idea. Lol.

Don't do squats either because you'll wear out your legs.

Don't *kitten*, because you'll wear out your critical parts.

Lies! Everyone knows you just go blind from masturbating too often :ohwell:

More lies.....if you *kitten* with your eyes closed, you remain unblind

But what if you *kitten* in a blindfold with your eyes open?

...i am just the news bearer

Source?

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1242224-why-you-should-not-workout?page=1#posts-19448305

You linked me back to your own thread. I meant, what is the source on where you read this on the internet? Was it the onion? :-)

I read a site that was promoting this idea. Lol.

Don't do squats either because you'll wear out your legs.

Don't *kitten*, because you'll wear out your critical parts.

Lies! Everyone knows you just go blind from masturbating too often :ohwell:

So that I why I squint so often......

There's obviously a lot of variables to it.

You can elevate your HR by working out, without actually making your heart stronger or more efficient.
So the argument of "Surely your resting HR will be lower, and make up for it." isn't always true.
In this case, if your heart was the limiting factor, (which isn't common.) it could potentially be true.

It obviously isn't something that can be proven or disprove easily.
If you look into it, you can easily find articles written by MD's arguing both sides, but most of them summarize with
"We don't really know for certain."

Caffeine and most stimulants also increase HR.

I think the decrease in resting heart rate will make up for it.

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/heart/prevention/exercise/pulse-target-heart-rate.aspx

Take a conservative estimate of resting heart rate of an athlete dropping from 80 bpm (beats per minute) to 60 bpm. Say you exercise daily for 30 minutes and increase the rate to 140 bpm for that time you are exercising. That is an additional 2400 beats over the resting total of 1800 for that time. During the other 23.5 hours in the day (1410 minutes) you will save 20 bpm or 28,200 total beats. This is not even a close comparison!

I read a site that was promoting this idea. Lol.

Don't do squats either because you'll wear out your legs.

Don't *kitten*, because you'll wear out your critical parts.

Lies! Everyone knows you just go blind from masturbating too often :ohwell:

More lies.....if you *kitten* with your eyes closed, you remain unblind

But what if you *kitten* in a blindfold with your eyes open?

You get cataracts of course, silly question.

I read a site that was promoting this idea. Lol.

Don't do squats either because you'll wear out your legs.

Don't *kitten*, because you'll wear out your critical parts.

Lies! Everyone knows you just go blind from masturbating too often :ohwell:

More lies.....if you *kitten* with your eyes closed, you remain unblind

But what if you *kitten* in a blindfold with your eyes open?

You get cataracts of course, silly question.

If I took my contact lenses out first would that work?

I think a study needs to be done into this.

I read a site that was promoting this idea. Lol.

Don't do squats either because you'll wear out your legs.

Don't *kitten*, because you'll wear out your critical parts.

Lies! Everyone knows you just go blind from masturbating too often :ohwell:

More lies.....if you *kitten* with your eyes closed, you remain unblind

But what if you *kitten* in a blindfold with your eyes open?

You get cataracts of course, silly question.

If I took my contact lenses out first would that work?

I think a study needs to be done into this.

I concur! We should conduct our own target group study.

Double blind would work best. That is, after all, the side-effect.

Why am I replying to this...


There is a fallacy in your argument
The premise that " we are born with a certain number of heartbeats"
does not support the conclusion that "if you exercise, your heart beats faster to your early demise"

Based on that argument alone we should also not: have sex (thus not reproduce), not work (stress causes elevated heart rates), not watch movies (elevates our emotions which increases our heart beats), and the list continues. The only thing we should do is stick a feeding tube in our bodies, stay in our beds, and sleep -- again like you said, its not about quality life, but I digress before I go onto another tangent

Yes, humans do have a "shelf life," as in eventually... we all die. WHEN we die is a matter of fate which I guess you can argue is already predetermined, so yes in theory we do have a "limited" amount of heart beats. Also whether by pulling the plug when you're brain dead or in a car accident or by natural death, the way everyone dies is through a cardiac death. This is where the confusion seems to be.

With the above stated information, lets go through a thought experiment: A man named John lives to be 50 year old and then dies. In those 50 years he has accumulated 123, 456, 789 heart beats.
Everyone dies (when determined by fate) and everyone dies a cardiac death, so your premise seems valid; however, it does NOT support the conclusion that thus we should not exercise.

In our hypothetical scenario, John died from a car accident. Your conclusion doesn't take into account the many other variables in life, it simply assumes that people die a natural death. It doesn't take into account accidents and ailments among other things that can befall on a person.


"Point is, time and gravity are what cause things to have a shelf life including instruments. And human body is the same. When you use it faster, you lose it faster.....is what they are saying."

Time is a man-made social construct -- time doesn't exist
Gravity is only but a theory.

But okay hypothetically again, let's say it was true and look at your argument from another scenario: You buy say.... an ipad and there is a product obsolescence that's set for exactly 2 years. This means in exactly 2 years, it will start malfunctioning and break. Would you A) Put it on a shelf to collect dust or Use it as many times as you can to the best potential until it breaks at that 2 year mark. I think we both know the answer here, same thing applies to the human body.


"Ok so lets think about it. You buy a clock....you take super care of it, you keep it in a dust proof, vacuumed container. do you really think it will work longer than the identicant one you bought that gathered dust? i think not"

Yes, the answer to that question is yes. And again to prove the fallacy in your argument, let's look at another scenario: Cars. Imagine you had a car that you washed, changed the oils, changed the break fluid and steering wheel fluid, put water in it, etc on a regular basis. Imagine another car of the SAME make and model and year in which you didn't do any of those things. Which of the two would last longer? Same thing goes for the human body.



"The assertion is that 99% of life expectancy is in your genes and pre-decided upon birth.
Now quality of life is a variable you can change. You can be fit to enjoy a run or a hike. You can enjoy the fresh fruits and vegetables, program yourself to do that. You can lift your grandson when you are 80.
But you can probably not change expectation of life by any appreciable quantity.
This is why you see that life expectancy increases for a population and not for a subgroup of people, over time. And life expectancy increases due to medical break throughs and technological advances, not because of improved workouts."

You started off so well! Why did you stop!
Yes genes do play a factor, so you do realize there more factors that play into this, that's great!
BUT genes are NOT the only factors that play a role. Lifestyle and environmental factors also play a huge role into this!

Another scenario: a man has a family history (genetic) of high blood pressure that lead to the death of his father and grandfather via heart attack and stroke respectively. However, through diet and exercise he was able to prevent high blood pressure and has not had a case of it. So there goes the argument of genes being the sole determining factor.

As to life expectancy increases being due to medical and technological advances, not improved work outs.... Not quite...
For example, take a look at Japan. They have the highest living expectancy BECAUSE of their lifestyle of eating healthy and exercising (might not exactly be in a gym but they walk everywhere for example).
Also if you look at 1st world vs 3rd world countries one of the biggest differences (other than technological and medical advances) is their LIFESTYLE. People have access to clean water and food in 1st world countries that the 3rd world does not. But what's interesting to note is that if you compare a healthy person from a 1st world country vs 3rd world country, people in the 3rd world country are healthier because of their diet and active lifestyle. So in conclusion, the reason why the life expectancy is lower in 3rd world countries is NOT solely based on technological and medical advances but rather because of the lack of access to be able to live a healthy lifestyle.


So to conclude this already long reply: death is inevitable and based on fate-- I'll take your premise. But fear of death should not be hindering us to live to the fullest; and once again there are MANY benefits to a healthy diet and exercise that's proven to help prevent/cure/alleviate the many road blocks in life that might prevent us from reaching the point where our heart will "run out of beats". So it might not necessarily let us live longer per say, but atleast it'll help us get to the point to where we die because our heart failed us.
Also quantity does not surpass quality (you can read John Mill to learn all about that).
And lastly... don't believe everything you hear on the interwebz