Not exercising worse for your health than smoking, diabetes and heart disease, study reveals
Replies
-
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.8
-
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.5 -
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.
It's a matter of correlation vs causation.8 -
Just thought I'd mention I am 83. I walk the dog daily, mow the grass, garden, run my own home, do my own cooking, I've just made the weekly bread by hand, and I don't drink alcohol or smoke anything. Never take the flu shot - only had flu once, way back in 1957. All my generation of family and friends are now either pushing up daisies or in old folk homes. I did yoga once, but have never been to a gym. Not sure why I'm still around, active and more or less free of arthritis. Think it might be moderation in all things ?
Possibly genes, possibly your healthy habits, possibly luck. More likely a mix of these things. It's all about increasing or decreasing risk; we are just trying to adjust the odds. I am doing all I can to make it more likely that I will live a long and healthy life but I understand there is no way I can guarantee it.
May the odds be ever in your favor.
8 -
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.
I was obese and so unfit that i had trouble putting my shoes on, walking stairs, and getting in and out of my car. I was diagnosed with diverticulitis when i was 56 and was in and out of the hospital several times over the next year for an abscessed colon. I wound up having to get surgery to remove a section of my colon when i was 57.
Because i was obese and so unfit they told me i had to have testing done on my heart and lungs to see if i could survive the surgery.
The testing of my lungs uncovered that i had COPD (i was a heavy smoker for over 40 years and was smoking 3 packs a day).
They did a stress test of my heart and it did not turn out good, so they had to do a catheterization. That uncovered that at some point in time i had a heart attack.
I survived the surgery, but they told me that if i did not start exercising, lose weight, and quit smoking that i would not be around much longer. They recommended walking to start.
I tried walking a mile at a slow pace and it damn near killed me. I had to lie down for an hour just to recover from it. I felt so pathetic that i asked my wife to shoot me in the head and put me out of my misery. I was a fitness instructor in the army back in the 1980's so i had the knowledge of what i had to do to beat this thing, so i just kept walking and laying down. 2, 3, sometimes 4 times a day. I got a fitness tracker, set it up to lose 1 lb per week, and started logging my food until i taught myself how to eat properly. The food part was easy because i burned a lot of calories walking every day, so i was actually eating more than before.
I got to the point that i could not get my heart rate up enough just walking so i started adding run intervals into my power walking. I also got a bike and a kayak along the way and started doing that too.
Now, i'm 61, and i can power walk at over a 4 mph pace for over 10 miles, i can run 5 miles at a slow pace, my resting heart rate went from the high 80's to the high 50's, all my blood work comes back normal now, i cut my bad cholesterol in half, and more than doubled my good cholesterol. I went from a size 40 pants to a size 32, have lost well over 50 lbs., and used electronic cigarettes to quit smoking (have not smoked a cigarette in 2 years).
I recently had another stress test done on my heart and not only is my heart strong and healthy now, but it actually healed itself from the heart attack. The cardiologist told me it was because of all the cardio that i do.
I do at least 1 activity every day, 7 days a week, even if it's only a 1.5 mile power walk.
people with chronic conditions (like me) in most cases could find a way to increase their fitness levels if they really wanted to. Some choose to do so, and some choose not to do so.
The CDC (along with other health organizations) recommend 150 minutes of exercise per week, and double that (300 minutes per week) for older people.
Is that enough causation for ya?20 -
OldAssDude wrote: »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.
I was obese and so unfit that i had trouble putting my shoes on, walking stairs, and getting in and out of my car. I was diagnosed with diverticulitis when i was 56 and was in and out of the hospital several times over the next year for an abscessed colon. I wound up having to get surgery to remove a section of my colon when i was 57.
Because i was obese and so unfit they told me i had to have testing done on my heart and lungs to see if i could survive the surgery.
The testing of my lungs uncovered that i had COPD (i was a heavy smoker for over 40 years and was smoking 3 packs a day).
They did a stress test of my heart and it did not turn out good, so they had to do a catheterization. That uncovered that at some point in time i had a heart attack.
I survived the surgery, but they told me that if i did not start exercising, lose weight, and quit smoking that i would not be around much longer. They recommended walking to start.
I tried walking a mile at a slow pace and it damn near killed me. I had to lie down for an hour just to recover from it. I felt so pathetic that i asked my wife to shoot me in the head and put me out of my misery. I was a fitness instructor in the army back in the 1980's so i had the knowledge of what i had to do to beat this thing, so i just kept walking and laying down. 2, 3, sometimes 4 times a day. I got a fitness tracker, set it up to lose 1 lb per week, and started logging my food until i taught myself how to eat properly. The food part was easy because i burned a lot of calories walking every day, so i was actually eating more than before.
I got to the point that i could not get my heart rate up enough just walking so i started adding run intervals into my power walking. I also got a bike and a kayak along the way and started doing that too.
Now, i'm 61, and i can power walk at over a 4 mph pace for over 10 miles, i can run 5 miles at a slow pace, my resting heart rate went from the high 80's to the high 50's, all my blood work comes back normal now, i cut my bad cholesterol in half, and more than doubled my good cholesterol. I went from a size 40 pants to a size 32, have lost well over 50 lbs., and used electronic cigarettes to quit smoking (have not smoked a cigarette in 2 years).
I recently had another stress test done on my heart and not only is my heart strong and healthy now, but it actually healed itself from the heart attack. The cardiologist told me it was because of all the cardio that i do.
I do at least 1 activity every day, 7 days a week, even if it's only a 1.5 mile power walk.
people with chronic conditions (like me) in most cases could find a way to increase their fitness levels if they really wanted to. Some choose to do so, and some choose not to do so.
The CDC (long with other health organizations) recommend 150 minutes of exercise per week, and double that (300 minutes per week) for older people.
Is that enough causation for ya?
Congratulations. I hope you have continued success.
The article compares various levels of fitness, and it seems to have had focus on the effect of extreme/elite exercise on mortality. They say that more exercise = more fitness = longest lived. That would not correlate with the people only doing the 150 minutes walking each week, although I am sure there is benefits in doing so and they are better off than those who are unable to exercise, or have chosen not to.
My point is that not everyone can exercise enough to get the correlated benefits, and not everyone can exercise enough, or hard enough, to get the best correlated benefits. Some are exercising less because of their health issues.
I will never again climb mountains after work and run 20-30km on Saturdays. Health issues, which could contribute to an earlier death than I'd prefer , have affected what I am able to do. Is the fact that I am not at a high fitness level cause health problems and my earlier demise, or will the health problems that may lead to an earlier death happen to correlate with the fact that they limit my exercise?
I think exercise is beneficial though. Don't get me wrong.3 -
OldAssDude wrote: »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.
I was obese and so unfit that i had trouble putting my shoes on, walking stairs, and getting in and out of my car. I was diagnosed with diverticulitis when i was 56 and was in and out of the hospital several times over the next year for an abscessed colon. I wound up having to get surgery to remove a section of my colon when i was 57.
Because i was obese and so unfit they told me i had to have testing done on my heart and lungs to see if i could survive the surgery.
The testing of my lungs uncovered that i had COPD (i was a heavy smoker for over 40 years and was smoking 3 packs a day).
They did a stress test of my heart and it did not turn out good, so they had to do a catheterization. That uncovered that at some point in time i had a heart attack.
I survived the surgery, but they told me that if i did not start exercising, lose weight, and quit smoking that i would not be around much longer. They recommended walking to start.
I tried walking a mile at a slow pace and it damn near killed me. I had to lie down for an hour just to recover from it. I felt so pathetic that i asked my wife to shoot me in the head and put me out of my misery. I was a fitness instructor in the army back in the 1980's so i had the knowledge of what i had to do to beat this thing, so i just kept walking and laying down. 2, 3, sometimes 4 times a day. I got a fitness tracker, set it up to lose 1 lb per week, and started logging my food until i taught myself how to eat properly. The food part was easy because i burned a lot of calories walking every day, so i was actually eating more than before.
I got to the point that i could not get my heart rate up enough just walking so i started adding run intervals into my power walking. I also got a bike and a kayak along the way and started doing that too.
Now, i'm 61, and i can power walk at over a 4 mph pace for over 10 miles, i can run 5 miles at a slow pace, my resting heart rate went from the high 80's to the high 50's, all my blood work comes back normal now, i cut my bad cholesterol in half, and more than doubled my good cholesterol. I went from a size 40 pants to a size 32, have lost well over 50 lbs., and used electronic cigarettes to quit smoking (have not smoked a cigarette in 2 years).
I recently had another stress test done on my heart and not only is my heart strong and healthy now, but it actually healed itself from the heart attack. The cardiologist told me it was because of all the cardio that i do.
I do at least 1 activity every day, 7 days a week, even if it's only a 1.5 mile power walk.
people with chronic conditions (like me) in most cases could find a way to increase their fitness levels if they really wanted to. Some choose to do so, and some choose not to do so.
The CDC (long with other health organizations) recommend 150 minutes of exercise per week, and double that (300 minutes per week) for older people.
Is that enough causation for ya?
Congratulations. I hope you have continued success.
The article compares various levels of fitness, and it seems to have had focus on the effect of extreme/elite exercise on mortality. They say that more exercise = more fitness = longest lived. That would not correlate with the people only doing the 150 minutes walking each week, although I am sure there is benefits in doing so and they are better off than those who are unable to exercise, or have chosen not to.
My point is that not everyone can exercise enough to get the correlated benefits, and not everyone can exercise enough, or hard enough, to get the best correlated benefits. Some are exercising less because of their health issues.
I will never again climb mountains after work and run 20-30km on Saturdays. Health issues, which could contribute to an earlier death than I'd prefer , have affected what I am able to do. Is the fact that I am not at a high fitness level cause health problems and my earlier demise, or will the health problems that may lead to an earlier death happen to correlate with the fact that they limit my exercise?
I think exercise is beneficial though. Don't get me wrong.
Why are you over complicating this.
The very simple point of this whole thing is that if you exercise, you will probably live longer than if you don't. And even if you are not at an elite fitness level, you will still probably live longer.
And with a better quality of life.12 -
OldAssDude wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »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.
I was obese and so unfit that i had trouble putting my shoes on, walking stairs, and getting in and out of my car. I was diagnosed with diverticulitis when i was 56 and was in and out of the hospital several times over the next year for an abscessed colon. I wound up having to get surgery to remove a section of my colon when i was 57.
Because i was obese and so unfit they told me i had to have testing done on my heart and lungs to see if i could survive the surgery.
The testing of my lungs uncovered that i had COPD (i was a heavy smoker for over 40 years and was smoking 3 packs a day).
They did a stress test of my heart and it did not turn out good, so they had to do a catheterization. That uncovered that at some point in time i had a heart attack.
I survived the surgery, but they told me that if i did not start exercising, lose weight, and quit smoking that i would not be around much longer. They recommended walking to start.
I tried walking a mile at a slow pace and it damn near killed me. I had to lie down for an hour just to recover from it. I felt so pathetic that i asked my wife to shoot me in the head and put me out of my misery. I was a fitness instructor in the army back in the 1980's so i had the knowledge of what i had to do to beat this thing, so i just kept walking and laying down. 2, 3, sometimes 4 times a day. I got a fitness tracker, set it up to lose 1 lb per week, and started logging my food until i taught myself how to eat properly. The food part was easy because i burned a lot of calories walking every day, so i was actually eating more than before.
I got to the point that i could not get my heart rate up enough just walking so i started adding run intervals into my power walking. I also got a bike and a kayak along the way and started doing that too.
Now, i'm 61, and i can power walk at over a 4 mph pace for over 10 miles, i can run 5 miles at a slow pace, my resting heart rate went from the high 80's to the high 50's, all my blood work comes back normal now, i cut my bad cholesterol in half, and more than doubled my good cholesterol. I went from a size 40 pants to a size 32, have lost well over 50 lbs., and used electronic cigarettes to quit smoking (have not smoked a cigarette in 2 years).
I recently had another stress test done on my heart and not only is my heart strong and healthy now, but it actually healed itself from the heart attack. The cardiologist told me it was because of all the cardio that i do.
I do at least 1 activity every day, 7 days a week, even if it's only a 1.5 mile power walk.
people with chronic conditions (like me) in most cases could find a way to increase their fitness levels if they really wanted to. Some choose to do so, and some choose not to do so.
The CDC (long with other health organizations) recommend 150 minutes of exercise per week, and double that (300 minutes per week) for older people.
Is that enough causation for ya?
Congratulations. I hope you have continued success.
The article compares various levels of fitness, and it seems to have had focus on the effect of extreme/elite exercise on mortality. They say that more exercise = more fitness = longest lived. That would not correlate with the people only doing the 150 minutes walking each week, although I am sure there is benefits in doing so and they are better off than those who are unable to exercise, or have chosen not to.
My point is that not everyone can exercise enough to get the correlated benefits, and not everyone can exercise enough, or hard enough, to get the best correlated benefits. Some are exercising less because of their health issues.
I will never again climb mountains after work and run 20-30km on Saturdays. Health issues, which could contribute to an earlier death than I'd prefer , have affected what I am able to do. Is the fact that I am not at a high fitness level cause health problems and my earlier demise, or will the health problems that may lead to an earlier death happen to correlate with the fact that they limit my exercise?
I think exercise is beneficial though. Don't get me wrong.
Why are you over complicating this.
The very simple point of this whole thing is that if you exercise, you will probably live longer than if you don't. And even if you are not at an elite fitness level, you will still probably live longer.
And with a better quality of life.
I'm just discussing correlation vs causation.
More fitness correlates with a longer life. It may not cause it. But then again it may, but this study doesn't really prove that.
I'm all for fitness for better quality of life and to feel better.
Here is the graph that shows the correlation between fitness and mortality. There is a correlation. They just have not shown whether the exercisers live longer because of the exercise, or are they exercising because they are already healthier?
Either way, exercise seems beneficial.
4 -
CarvedTones wrote: »I think there are other correlations that affect it; people who exercise regularly are more likely to be people who also have a reasonably healthy diet and don't smoke. So I don't think it is just exercise alone that makes such a huge difference. I am exercising regularly, BTW. This not me being defensive, just making an observation.
The study (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2707428) did account for smoking and some other variables. Not for diet, which I think is understandable in a retrospective study with so many individuals -- not to mention the difficulty of setting parameters for "a reasonably healthy diet.To adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between performance groups, a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was constructed to obtain the risk-adjusted association between all-cause mortality and CRF. Covariates incorporated into the model included age, sex, body mass index, history of CAD, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, ESRD, year of testing, and current use of aspirin, β-blockers, or statins.CarvedTones wrote: »
Lots of conflicting anecdata out there. One of the things that makes this study stand out is that it is 122,000 patients across 14 years. The people who weren't fit were roughly 4 times as likely to die during the study period compared to the ones that were fit. It would be interesting to know how they measured fitness and what the cutoff is to say whether or not someone is fit. It would also be interesting to know how many died.
Again, from the published study:
The study population included 122 007 patients (mean [SD] age, 53.4 [12.6] years; 72 173 [59.2%] male). Death occurred in 13 637 patients during 1.1 million person-years of observation.lynn_glenmont wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »"Being unfit on a treadmill or in an exercise stress test has a worse prognosis, as far as death, than being hypertensive, being diabetic or being a current smoker," Jaber told CNN. "We've never seen something as pronounced as this and as objective as this."
...
Researchers retrospectively studied 122,007 patients who underwent exercise treadmill testing at Cleveland Clinic between January 1, 1991 and December 31, 2014 to measure all-cause mortality relating to the benefits of exercise and fitness.
...
What made the study so unique, beyond the sheer number of people studied, he said was that researchers weren't relying on patients self-reporting their exercise. "This is not the patients telling us what they do," Jaber said. "This is us testing them and figuring out objectively the real measure of what they do."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/health/study-not-exercising-worse-than-smoking/index.html
Well, no. It's researchers testing people and making an assumption about what the stress test results indicated about their exercise. The CNN headline and some of the quotes from the researchers assume that stress test results are accurate indicators of ... how much people exercise?? How hard they exercise?? It's not really clear. Somebody needs to study what kind of exercise, in what amounts (duration and frequency), and at what intensity best improves your results on a stress test.
They’re testing aerobic fitness regardless of training regimen. Do you know a way to improve aerobic fitness without appropriate aerobic exercise?
I'm not a researcher, but I try to avoid making assumptions that I haven't seen any support for. The assumption here (more by the CNN story, this thread, and quotes in the CNN story by the researchers, rather than the actual study results as published) is that differences in CRF (cardiorespiratory fitness) across individuals as measured in an exercise treadmill test are completely attributable to "exercise," rather than genetics, general activity levels, environmental conditions, or something else not occurring to me now.
2 -
OldAssDude wrote: »OldAssDude wrote: »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.
I was obese and so unfit that i had trouble putting my shoes on, walking stairs, and getting in and out of my car. I was diagnosed with diverticulitis when i was 56 and was in and out of the hospital several times over the next year for an abscessed colon. I wound up having to get surgery to remove a section of my colon when i was 57.
Because i was obese and so unfit they told me i had to have testing done on my heart and lungs to see if i could survive the surgery.
The testing of my lungs uncovered that i had COPD (i was a heavy smoker for over 40 years and was smoking 3 packs a day).
They did a stress test of my heart and it did not turn out good, so they had to do a catheterization. That uncovered that at some point in time i had a heart attack.
I survived the surgery, but they told me that if i did not start exercising, lose weight, and quit smoking that i would not be around much longer. They recommended walking to start.
I tried walking a mile at a slow pace and it damn near killed me. I had to lie down for an hour just to recover from it. I felt so pathetic that i asked my wife to shoot me in the head and put me out of my misery. I was a fitness instructor in the army back in the 1980's so i had the knowledge of what i had to do to beat this thing, so i just kept walking and laying down. 2, 3, sometimes 4 times a day. I got a fitness tracker, set it up to lose 1 lb per week, and started logging my food until i taught myself how to eat properly. The food part was easy because i burned a lot of calories walking every day, so i was actually eating more than before.
I got to the point that i could not get my heart rate up enough just walking so i started adding run intervals into my power walking. I also got a bike and a kayak along the way and started doing that too.
Now, i'm 61, and i can power walk at over a 4 mph pace for over 10 miles, i can run 5 miles at a slow pace, my resting heart rate went from the high 80's to the high 50's, all my blood work comes back normal now, i cut my bad cholesterol in half, and more than doubled my good cholesterol. I went from a size 40 pants to a size 32, have lost well over 50 lbs., and used electronic cigarettes to quit smoking (have not smoked a cigarette in 2 years).
I recently had another stress test done on my heart and not only is my heart strong and healthy now, but it actually healed itself from the heart attack. The cardiologist told me it was because of all the cardio that i do.
I do at least 1 activity every day, 7 days a week, even if it's only a 1.5 mile power walk.
people with chronic conditions (like me) in most cases could find a way to increase their fitness levels if they really wanted to. Some choose to do so, and some choose not to do so.
The CDC (long with other health organizations) recommend 150 minutes of exercise per week, and double that (300 minutes per week) for older people.
Is that enough causation for ya?
Congratulations. I hope you have continued success.
The article compares various levels of fitness, and it seems to have had focus on the effect of extreme/elite exercise on mortality. They say that more exercise = more fitness = longest lived. That would not correlate with the people only doing the 150 minutes walking each week, although I am sure there is benefits in doing so and they are better off than those who are unable to exercise, or have chosen not to.
My point is that not everyone can exercise enough to get the correlated benefits, and not everyone can exercise enough, or hard enough, to get the best correlated benefits. Some are exercising less because of their health issues.
I will never again climb mountains after work and run 20-30km on Saturdays. Health issues, which could contribute to an earlier death than I'd prefer , have affected what I am able to do. Is the fact that I am not at a high fitness level cause health problems and my earlier demise, or will the health problems that may lead to an earlier death happen to correlate with the fact that they limit my exercise?
I think exercise is beneficial though. Don't get me wrong.
Why are you over complicating this.
The very simple point of this whole thing is that if you exercise, you will probably live longer than if you don't. And even if you are not at an elite fitness level, you will still probably live longer.
And with a better quality of life.
Why would it be over complicating things to want to drill down on the "why"? Some of us enjoy really digging into stuff like this.
The health/medical community got mired in the low-fat movement for a couple of decades because they didn't dig deeper into the research.
Obviously exercise is beneficial, no one is debating that. But if a study is going to start putting habits in order of how much damage they do, I'd personally like to try to figure out how accurate it is. I've already had a coworker mention seeing this headline and say they're more hopeful than ever that their time on the treadmill is mitigating the damage of their smoking
7 -
My point is that not everyone can exercise enough to get the correlated benefits, and not everyone can exercise enough, or hard enough, to get the best correlated benefits. Some are exercising less because of their health issues.
Well your point represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the research.
As has been pointed out, this demonstrates correlation and not causation. This paper does not say that if you "exercise enough" you can achieve the better outcomes. Those who are exercising less due to their health issues are more likely to die sooner/younger, period. There is nothing in this paper that says exercising more will save your life, it says that people who are more fit live longer. Fitness has many attributes, a large one (but not the only one) of which is aerobic exercise.lynn_glenmont wrote: »I'm not a researcher, but I try to avoid making assumptions that I haven't seen any support for. The assumption here (more by the CNN story, this thread, and quotes in the CNN story by the researchers, rather than the actual study results as published) is that differences in CRF (cardiorespiratory fitness) across individuals as measured in an exercise treadmill test are completely attributable to "exercise," rather than genetics, general activity levels, environmental conditions, or something else not occurring to me now.
The bolded part seems to be your assumption, not the assumption of the researchers. Health and fitness are multi-factorial. One factor (aerobic fitness) has a demonstrably strong association with outcomes (death). Other factors are at play for sure, but to discount this study is insane. The other variables - genetics, activity levels, environment - are essentially non-factors due to the tremendous sample size.
Look, a 1970s Caddilac with a V8 engine is less fuel efficient than a VW Golf with a 1.2L 4 cylinder engine. I could demonstrate that a smaller and more efficient engine is strongly correlated with fuel consumption and people would jump in going "well you didn't consider differences in fuel refining techniques, global temperature, and weight of the occupants!" Sure those things impact fuel consumption too, but just because B and C and D are part of the equation does not undermine the role of A.8 -
But if a study is going to start putting habits in order of how much damage they do, I'd personally like to try to figure out how accurate it is. I've already had a coworker mention seeing this headline and say they're more hopeful than ever that their time on the treadmill is mitigating the damage of their smoking
How would you make this study more accurate when it already analyzes hundreds of thousands of data points? Big data = reliable data.
Your coworker isn't wrong by the way. If we had to rank the health / life expectancy of athletes who smoke versus non-athletes who smoke, I'm quite confident the athletes would do better. Mitigating is not a synonym for canceling, right?9 -
Like it is said - keep moving otherwise they'll put a tablecloth over you. Congratulations oldassdude! I usually walk for half hour or more daily apart from the dog walk, She is one small pup - 8lb - and once around the block is enough for her three times a day. But add to that housework and gardening and I guess I'm on the right track in my eighties.
9 -
But if a study is going to start putting habits in order of how much damage they do, I'd personally like to try to figure out how accurate it is. I've already had a coworker mention seeing this headline and say they're more hopeful than ever that their time on the treadmill is mitigating the damage of their smoking
How would you make this study more accurate when it already analyzes hundreds of thousands of data points? Big data = reliable data.
Your coworker isn't wrong by the way. If we had to rank the health / life expectancy of athletes who smoke versus non-athletes who smoke, I'm quite confident the athletes would do better. Mitigating is not a synonym for canceling, right?
I'm thinking more the accuracy of the conclusions than the data. Data can be accurate, and yet have overly dramatic conclusions drawn based on correlation.
My coworker isn't an athlete, and you've highlighted what is part of my concern. Did this study show that people who smoke are less likely to get lung cancer if they spend half an hour walking on a treadmill 3 times per week? Or did it average risk over large demographic sections without eliminating other confounding factors? Are people who smoke AND exercise more likely to quit smoking at some point? Is that what actually lowers their risk of dying? Or is it actually the exercising itself?
I'm always happy to see people encouraged to exercise. But I think a huge issue affecting the general populations understanding of good health is studies and research being badly translated into clickbait titles that ignore the details. Just my 2 cents. I'm not putting down the study or anything, just enjoying mucking around in the weeds on a lazy Sunday.9 -
Did this study show that people who smoke are less likely to get lung cancer if they spend half an hour walking on a treadmill 3 times per week?
We both know the answer to this question, but I'm failing to see the relevance. Smoking, like a lack-of-fitness, correlates with death. Lung cancer is one potential mechanism.Or did it average risk over large demographic sections without eliminating other confounding factors?
It did largely eliminate confounding factors. That's the entire purpose of doing a study where n=122,000. To account for confounding by equally distributing the confounders.Are people who smoke AND exercise more likely to quit smoking at some point? Is that what actually lowers their risk of dying?
Irrelevant. It's not a study on causality it's a study on correlation. Regardless of why someone is fit/chooses to get fit, their fitness is a predictor of longevity, period.Or is it actually the exercising itself?
Aerobic fitness makes you statistically more likely to live longer. This is not a study on one's motivations to exercise, it's a study on the effects of the state of being fit.
8 -
Lots of folks (including CNN!) mis-reading this paper. That CNN article title is incorrect. It's quite straightforward. There is a strong inverse correlation (i.e. higher CRF=lower death rate) between CRF (cardio-respiratory fitness) and death over time, and this association persists even when controlled for the presence of other diseases such as heart disease, high cholesterol, DM or HTN. (This means, for example, that diabetics with a higher level of CRF lived longer than diabetics with a lower level of CRF.) CRF was determined by how many METs (controlled for sex and age) a person achieved using a standardized treadmill exercise protocol.
It says nothing about exercise. Or genetics. Or smoking. Or diet. Or grampa.
@Zedeff has it right.10 -
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. 6 -
It's validation to me. I started on my current attempt at being fit motivated by this very correlation that I felt pretty certain existed. Usually it was from more tightly targeted studies - a reduction in Alzheimer's rates, heart disease, etc. I saw a lot of the same things related to obesity. I realize it's about odds; I just want them higher. I am old enough that I might double or triple the number of healthy years left, but currently healthy enough that it isn't too late (at least I hope not). My current attempt has been my most successful and studies like this help me stay dedicated to the cause, though at this point how good I feel about myself and how much I enjoy doing activities that require fitness is a big motivator as well.5
-
My point is that not everyone can exercise enough to get the correlated benefits, and not everyone can exercise enough, or hard enough, to get the best correlated benefits. Some are exercising less because of their health issues.
Well your point represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the research.
As has been pointed out, this demonstrates correlation and not causation. This paper does not say that if you "exercise enough" you can achieve the better outcomes. Those who are exercising less due to their health issues are more likely to die sooner/younger, period. There is nothing in this paper that says exercising more will save your life, it says that people who are more fit live longer. Fitness has many attributes, a large one (but not the only one) of which is aerobic exercise.
I also pointed out that it was a correlation not a causation. Wrinkles and grey hair also correlate with greater mortality. So does age.
I realize that the paper says that the people who are more fit live longer. It just does not say that if you get fit, then you will live longer.
On a separate point, my father, who was a professional athlete, smoked and died at age 42. I doubt fitness negates some behaviours and health risks as much as some may think.
ETA I do not doubt that fitness is healthful.7 -
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.
Agreed!My point is that not everyone can exercise enough to get the correlated benefits, and not everyone can exercise enough, or hard enough, to get the best correlated benefits. Some are exercising less because of their health issues.
Well your point represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the research.
As has been pointed out, this demonstrates correlation and not causation. This paper does not say that if you "exercise enough" you can achieve the better outcomes. Those who are exercising less due to their health issues are more likely to die sooner/younger, period. There is nothing in this paper that says exercising more will save your life, it says that people who are more fit live longer. Fitness has many attributes, a large one (but not the only one) of which is aerobic exercise.
I also pointed out that it was a correlation not a causation. Wrinkles and grey hair also correlate with greater mortality. So does age.
Well, wrinkles and grey hair aren't really confounders, they are co-linear with age. They also aren't a great examples of a flawed independent variable because they are in fact dependent on health; wrinkles and loss of pigment represent the lack of health of some body tissues, and unhealthy tissues should of course not thrive as well as healthy ones.0 -
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. 20 -
"Get up off your butt?" Well m'dear I DID. I went on a 40 minute walk instead and have just come back in here to take a peep. By the way, my hair is still mainly naturally brown at 83, the wrinkles aren't bad, and most folk think I'm in my sixties. This will all change soon - the march of time being what it is. I'm having chicken pot pie and veggies for supper and I've got a murder mystery to read. So I'll away before I completely lose the old grey matter, I.e. marbles.9
-
"Get up off your butt?" Well m'dear I DID. I went on a 40 minute walk instead and have just come back in here to take a peep. By the way, my hair is still mainly naturally brown at 83, the wrinkles aren't bad, and most folk think I'm in my sixties. This will all change soon - the march of time being what it is. I'm having chicken pot pie and veggies for supper and I've got a murder mystery to read. So I'll away before I completely lose the old grey matter, I.e. marbles.
UGOGIRL!!!
just sent you a friend request.3 -
It did largely eliminate confounding factors. That's the entire purpose of doing a study where n=122,000. To account for confounding by equally distributing the confounders.
It eliminated many confounding factors through statistical analysis of the data. Big numbers don't ensure that confounding factors are equally distributed, because confounding factors may not in fact be equally distributed across people who, for example, have a high CRF level and those that don't. The point I am making is not specific to this study. It's a point about how data and statistical analysis works.0 -
The article:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2707428?resultClick=3
I believe the data was collected from 1991 to 2014 with the average length of time a patient was tracked being about 8 years.
It was interesting. I think they are right in saying fitness helps improve how long you will live, especially in the elderly. For younger people, I'm not sure how much it helps.
Well, to make an old person you start with a young person and add time, so I don't think this distinction is as important as it might sound at first glance.
I knew a lady who threw her back out in her 20s. The doctor said her weight and lack of exercise (leading to poor core muscle strength - not enough to protect her spine) were the causes.0 -
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?2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »The article:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2707428?resultClick=3
I believe the data was collected from 1991 to 2014 with the average length of time a patient was tracked being about 8 years.
It was interesting. I think they are right in saying fitness helps improve how long you will live, especially in the elderly. For younger people, I'm not sure how much it helps.
Well, to make an old person you start with a young person and add time, so I don't think this distinction is as important as it might sound at first glance.
I knew a lady who threw her back out in her 20s. The doctor said her weight and lack of exercise (leading to poor core muscle strength - not enough to protect her spine) were the causes.
I have only recently gotten in really good shape for the first time in decades and I am nearly 60. I do expect to reap the benefits from here on out, though they might not be statistically as good as for someone who has been fit longer. In either case it is just increased odds of living a longer healthier life, not a guarantee. Anyway, to get to near 60, I have "dodged some bullets". For example, I did not die of a heart attack. I was at a greater risk because I was overweight and out of shape. A lower risk means less bullets to dodge to get here (lower risk of being hit). So I agree with you - the sooner someone gets in shape the better and then they should strive to stay fit.3 -
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.
SIR YES SIR!4 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »But... Worse prognosis, as far as death meaning what exactly? We all die at the end anyway.
I assume that means dying younger.
Let's talk about quality of life, though. My extremely active 80 year old mom has a great quality of life, while other people her age I know do not. Also, I met a 92 year old Senior Olympian last year who was truly inspirational.
This notorious octogenarian works out twice per week.
This is a huge part of why I lift.
We all lose muscle as we age, it's better to start with more of it, and to keep as much as you can. I volunteered at a nursing home, a lot of the people there couldn't get off the toilet without help. I don't mind doing squats if it helps me love independently when I'm 80. I've known people who threw their back out, and went through terrible pain; I do lots of core strength exercises to protect my spine.
Fred Beckey was still climbing mountains and camping in places he wasn't supposed to in his 90s. So why should I have to give up the things I love when I get old?
Same here - that and maintaining military bearing.
The dataset is amazing in this study! I've suspected this for some time, but using my confirmation biased observations. My grandparents lived into their 90s and were all very active and ate varied diets - pickled pigs feet, moonshine, and smoked cigars and pipes. My dad had a bad fall and neglected the injury. By the time we got him to the hospital the infection went systemic and he contracted necrotizing fasciitis. I thought for sure we were going to have to amputate his leg. The surgeon was amazed and stated despite being in his 70s had the vascular of men in their 30s. Still lost a lot of tissue and multiple grafts, but the surgeon was able to save his leg. That was 4 years ago and he is still walking around today. Turns 80 this week.
Every year we hold a reunion within the special operations community and hold a 4 mile beach run. I was always amazed at the grizzled old veterans jogging along, smoking cigars, and setting the pace (~8 min/mile) for us newbies.7
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