Not exercising worse for your health than smoking, diabetes and heart disease, study reveals
Options
Replies
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions