Strong Legs Associated with Healthy Brains in Twin Study | Hacker News Reader

Strong Legs Associated with Healthy Brains in Twin Study

well.blogs.nytimes.com

186 pointsmhb129 comments

I go to therapy to manage my depression. I don't have a severe case, but it's bad enough that it affects my productivity at times. Once a year or so I'll have a bout where I am almost completely unable to function.

The tools I use to manage depression are (wait for it) diet, exercise and prayer (or meditation, if you want to keep it secular).

Exercise is particularly useful. Depression affects the mind, so it's difficult to be self-aware about it. But I've found that when I start to have those thoughts of hopelessness, going out and running 1-3 miles at a pace that pushes my physical limits (I use a Nike Sportwatch for measurements) eradicates my depression.

On a semi-daily basis, 30 minutes of prayer, 30 minutes exercise and at least one meal with ~90g of raw spinach seems to do the trick for me.

Spinach, that's interesting. Apparently, tryptophan + vitamin B6 + vitamin C converts to serotonin.

https://thomasmcgregor.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/cure-depress...

Thanks for the link. I started on Spinach because my doctor suggested "leafy green vegetables". I tried kale first, but I prefer the taste of spinach.

I most often eat it first thing in the morning as a shake: 90g spinach + 1 cup almond milk + half a frozen banana.

According to the article, I may want to add some strawberries or oranges for more vitamin C.

Fresh spinach?

Depends. I buy groceries every two weeks and get two bags of fresh spinach. I freeze one and leave the other in the vegetable crisper. So the first week it's all fresh, the second week it's frozen.

If you want more calories, try skirlie (oatmeal and spinach)

http://www.mostlyeating.com/skirlie-fast-savoury-oats

You tried kale before spinach? WTF? What's the story behind that?

Since the doctor's recommendation. Kale seems to have slightly more nutrients, but, IMO, at to great a cost too taste.

Ah that makes sense. Still, I stand by my shock. Going to kale before spinach is just nuts (barring pressure from a doctor who doesn't care about your culinary experiences).

Have you tried cooking it though? Kale is one of the greatest stir fry ingredients

I had the misfortune of working at a company that chose to get us lunches from Zesty. I endured more varieties of kale preparation (and avocado which I also dislike unless made into guacamole) in a month than in my entire previous life. So many things were great about that job, but I was actually dreading lunch on most days.

The kale taste can be mitigated somewhat with a mixture of lemon juice, olive oil, salt, pepper and sesame oil. I do this with spicy arugula too as I often find the taste overpowering.

I found it to be the other way around, spinach tastes gross and kale is rather neutral. Were you cooking it?

I get similar affects with turkey, again with the tryptophan.

Interestingly turkey has slightly less tryptophan than chicken: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/much-tryptophan-poultry-7904....

Hi, Popeye, nice to see you on HN ;)

it's difficult to be self-aware about it

I don't have any difficulties myself with being self-aware about it at all, on the contrary. The major difficulty for me is using that knowledge to do something with it. Not sure what is worse: being depressed, or being depressed and knowing that you are and realizing all your thoughts are going downwards into the wrong spiral and not being able to do shit about it. Well, except hard exercise or meditation or long walks etc, but pure mindcontrol doesn't work :]

For sure, when someone is in the depths of a bad depression, they may know what they have to do to get out of it but still be unable to do that. Therapy, drugs and family intervention are all good for getting people to the point where they can maintain mental health with OPs three things. Those things might work when "pure mindcontrol" doesn't.

I've found that hot sauce on some crackers, or jalapeno peppers can do the trick -- it doesn't make me "happy", but moderates some of the "despair" feeling.

Yeah, our evolutionary response to the capsaicin arms raise was to push out endorphins and adrenaline to overcome the pain to get at the nutrition. As a result, a decent concentration gives you a nice little high to go with the vitamins.

You might want to check out sardines too.

I suffer from extreme depression as well. I used to meditate for at least an hour a day, I also used to run five or more miles a day...

I haven't been doing either recently, and my depression is really bad right now.

I was biking a lot, until my bike was stolen recently. That added to my depression...

But I walk an average of four miles a day, and take average of 10,000 steps a day and climb an average of ten flights of stairs a day.

My legs are still incredibly strong - but I need to do more about my depression. The last few weeks have been as much as I can take.

I'm not a mental health professional but I suffer from depression. It's not an extreme case but it's still quite painful. I urge you to continue striving to throw off that grey veil that shrouds life. I can assure you that the first glimpse of brightness and clear vision will come, even after weeks of crushing hopelessness.

Even when my brain's biochemical state is fucked and broken and makes me want to hide and disappear, I can remember that it will change and I will feel better and that I do have some degree of control over it. You seem very self-aware, which is an enormous challenge when one is depressed. That means that you have one of the tools to escape depression. Remember that.

It may sound trite, but fuck it. Just keep on going. You will feel better.

Edit: If you can, try to find a professional counselor or psychiatrist. If nothing else, they're exceptionally good listeners.

Thank you.

I was going to counseling - until I couldn't afford her any longer.

I have children - so they keep me aware, and here.

I've found that a high intensity workout is more effective than a low one - even comparing a jog to a run.

A few weeks ago, I could feel the depression setting in, and several runs that started with 8 minute miles didn't seem to stop it. So I resolved to go faster (read: got pissed and sprinted), ran a 6:21 mile (my fastest since I started measuring last year) and it was like spring cleaning for my brain.

As a fellow sufferer of depression, I can relate and agree that the more intense the effort the greater the release of hormones/feelings which appear to suppress the depressive symptoms. That being said however, I have found long walks of a low intensity have been especially useful. Particularly on trails or hiking, the constant mindfulness of each step over rocks and roots helps put me in a meditative trance.

Solvitur Ambulando, it is solved by walking

>Solvitur Ambulando, it is solved by walking

This is really interesting, in my martial art, which I did extremely actively in my youth - but far less now -- one of the sayings is "Keep walking" and "Keep moving"

The "Keep walking" is even used in some of the learning of actual techniques -- you move into a certain position with your Uke, and then... keep walking... and it executes the throw.

Keep walking is also used when talking about meditation in their teachings as well... movement meditation.

So you literally walked it off. Perhaps there's wisdom in that saying.

I've been juicing Spinach daily to great effect.

This is actually a fairly old idea and hinges on the role of leg muscles in general circulation and brain irrigation. I don't have the other papers on hand, but I recall there being studies relating sitting time with cognitive performance, the idea being that there's a bit of hypoxia associated with immobility.

Edit: An anecdote which I think will resonate with many. Very often I start getting drowsy in front of my computer and decide to get a cup of coffee. By the time I make it to the coffee machine, I'm no longer drowsy ...

Yup, one of the premises of this book: http://www.amazon.com/Spark-Revolutionary-Science-Exercise-B...

Its also humorous to note that the in many schools of Chinese Yoga (Qi-Gong) and Tai Chi, the first pose given is a horse stance. Where you simply stand and relax into the bone structure of your body, then continue for hours on end, (for sometimes many years with this single pose depending on the student).

Do stronger muscles result in increased blood flow?

I could be wrong but I thought I read. Increased exercise increases capillary size and in some cases can form new ones? In which relates the more you exercise. Stonger your muscles. The more blood flow there is.

I believe so, but take that with a grain of salt. As I remember, the leg muscles play a role in forcing blood back up towards the heart.

Just started to read the book "Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work, Home, and School".

It basically starts with this "For starters, we are not used to sitting at a desk for eight hours a day. From an evolutionary perspective, our brains developed while working out, walking as many as 12 miles a day. The brain still craves that experience, especially in sedentary populations like our own. That’s why exercise boosts brain power (Brain Rule #1) in such populations. Exercisers outperform couch potatoes in long-term memory, reasoning, attention, and problem-solving tasks. I am convinced that integrating exercise into our eight hours at work or school would only be normal."

That'd be easy to check, since plenty school have a daily morning routine

now, school scores aren't comparable, but I guess researchers can figure out a metric for brain fitness.

> Exercisers outperform couch potatoes in long-term memory, reasoning, attention, and problem-solving tasks

I'm pretty sure the cause/effect is reversed here. It's more likely that people who are smart and have better focus/are less impulsive are more likely to take care of their health and exercise.

From my experience, there is no correllation between someone being smart and doing exercise.

I think it's misleading to take this kind of studies like they have a binary conclusion (exercisers=smart, couch potatoes=dumb).

I guess there are many factors affecting intelligence and fitness, from cultural to genetic.

It might not be the only factor, but it could well be one of many.

That is probably because you almost never see those couch potatoes on the street.

There is really not any way to know without the right study design. However, if there are multiple ways that each could cause the other, it may be a kind of dialectical process. For example, smiling can make you happy if you force yourself to do it. It also is the result of being happy.

So how come Stephen Hawking isn't a mental slouch by now ?

A single data point is hardly an argument.

I think he was pointing out that correlation does not equal causation. Strong legs => healthy brain is just silly. Could it be better eating habits => both? Just because they're twins doesn't mean one doesn't like their vegetables. Also, this data point is just as valid as the "Bill Gates jumped out of trash cans!" point.

As was stated elsewhere the most likely cause is that smart people are much more likely to take their health seriously, and part of that is some form of vigorous exercise.

I'm guessing that Hawking would love to exercise. He just can't. Unlike a "couch potato", who can, but won't.

How do you know he isn't? How do you know what his mental ability would have been if he could?

You have a point. We don't know how well he would do "in long-term memory, reasoning, attention, and problem-solving tasks" used in studies. He might have particular difficulty with the attention tasks as his mind keeps wandering back to physics.

Both A->B and B->A can be true without A<->B with complex relationships.

Dr John Ratey, M.D. covers the topic of exercise and those mental attributes in his seminal 2008 book Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain. I can't recommend this book strongly enough particularly if there are mental health issues in your life -- and who doesn't!

Dr Ratey references and describes a number of experiments and studies done in elementary schools where mental acuity improved across the population when exercise was added. One fascinating detail was the immediacy of the effect. I'd be very surprised if the most recent data is not consistent with the results described in Spark.

I met John Ratey I believe at his house-office when I was around 16 or 17 (circa 1997) for ADD counseling (my mother was determined to find the best). I remember distinctly telling him how lifting weights was one of the only things that helped me somewhat keep organized... he un-officially agreed that it was better than the medication being pushed at the time (I'm sure things have changed). He was one of the reasons I stopped taking the ADD drugs as I really really hated them (ritalin, adderal...etc).

Methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine are still the active ingredient of most ADHD drugs.

Is it? Aerobic exercise increases circulation and oxygen uptake, both of which should improve brain function.

For me, the difference that exercise makes is very noticeable, to the point that I feel completely unproductive after not running for some time.

Anecdotal confirmation: Bill Gates, who is widely believed to have a very healthy brain, in more youthful years used to perform silly jumping feats, like jumping out of garbage cans.

Anecdotal counter-example: my dog likes jumping into garbage cans but isn't very smart.

Might apply to humans only... no canine trials have been studied yet. /s

Anecdoesn't confirmation can be just as important in science as anecdotal.

Smart is not necessarily the same as healthy. Is your dog prone to bouts of depression?

or he is carefully hiding higher intelligence from you.

To paraphrase Steve Martin, if you have $3000 worth of unexplained dog treats and chewy-toys show up at your doorstep, make sure you are shredding your credit card statements before putting them in said garbage can.

This is slightly inappropriate for HN, but here is a video of Bill doing that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TCxE0bWQeQ

Pff, everybody knows he inherited his strong legs.

Just like I always say, all a man needs to succeed in life is maths and squats.

Strong legs are also associated with people who run a lot, which has been already shown to be associated with healthy brains.

It's possible this study is a proxy for the common health advice of 'just do more cardio'

Or just an overblown observation that smart people do more exercise. Similar to the massive bullshitstorm over the observation that people who are healthy sit less.

Or weightlifting, squatting and deadlifting heavy on a regular basis will give you substantially stronger legs than any runner.

I'm not entirely convinced 'strong legs' are the causative factor in healthier brains. It is possible the researchers measured an artifact of people that do running cardio.

Particularly damning is that the research participants were all female. Anyone who's set foot in a gym knows that women do cardio disproportionately, and that the cardio they do increases thigh musculature...

I have to disagree. Sure women do more cardio, but the cardio increasing thigh musculature? Not a chance. Squatting increases thigh musculature. Doing the elliptical for an hour a day does not. Running slowly or at a medium speed does not. Nor do either lead to any gain in strength anywhere.

Have you seen the thighs and calves of people who bike? Of course lifting will cause more hypertrophy, but arguing that cardio doesn't lead to some gains in musculature is just wrong.

Huh? Running certainly increases the strength of your leg muscles. The only possible exception to this would be if you were jogging very very slowly. But if you go from not running at all to running faster than, say, 6mph, your legs will certainly get stronger.

That depends completely on how you define "strong". I think legs that can carry a 50 pound pack to the top of a mountain are "stronger" than a guy who can lift twice as much as me, but can't even run a 5K.

That's endurance, which is objectively different from strength.

Objectively?

Because last I checked, the english language was flexible, with multiple definitions for most words. I looked a few up for "strength". I did not find any dictionary that solely defined it as the ability to move heavy objects.

Words have consensus meanings, and when you try to redefine them unilaterally you make it harder to communicate. Strength in this context is defined as the ability to exert physical force (as in Newton's Second Law, force = mass x acceleration).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_strength

The word isn't being redefined. Endurance is the ability to continue exerting physical force over a long duration.

Do you disagree that it's useful to distinguish between strength and endurance?

codingdave asserted, "I think legs that can carry a 50 pound pack to the top of a mountain are "stronger" than a guy who can lift twice as much as me, but can't even run a 5K."

The former is an example of great endurance (without necessarily having great strength), and the latter is an example of great strength without endurance. You can have one without the other, so they're different, and it's plainly incorrect to say that a person with high endurance/low strength is "stronger" than a person with high strength/low endurance.

Endurance is the ability to retain strength over an extended period of time, that's all I'm saying.

I took it to mean that the thing being described by the word endurance is objectively different than the thing being described by the word strength when not being used in the endurance sense. In a way saying that the measurement of a muscle's ability to repeated do the same amount of work before failure is a objectively different than the measurement of a muscle's ability to output a maximum amount of work for a single rep. Or another way, the stat that lets you lift a 1kg weight 200 times is objectively different from the stat that lets you lift a 200kg weight once. Related, but different.

As to if the word strength is objectively different from the word endurance, simply consider that one starts with a 's' and the other with an 'e'.

Any runner? Sprinting is as good as anything for developing explosive leg strength. Of course, the best sprinters work lifting into their training as well.

> Sprinting is as good as anything for developing explosive leg strength.

Considering that "leg strength" is conventionally measured via seated leg press for a maximal, single repetition, I would be extremely surprised if an Olympic sprinter could achieve the same sort of leg strength that an Olympic weightlifter (of similar weight) could attain.

If you define leg strength specifically as "seated leg press for a maximal, single repetition" then sure, the Olympic weight lifter will win.

No knowledgeable sources are advising to "just do more cardio" anymore. Science has long marched on past that advice.

Unfortunately, the abstract says nothing about how "leg power" is measured or what exercise regimens were used.

Lifting and sprinting will utilize different fibers (and fuels) than cardio.

I'd also want to see how they corrected for other effects, e.g. sleep. I sleep a lot faster and better a couple of hours after lifting, and that will have other benefits like hGH release.

TL;DR

"muscle fitness (measured by leg power)" is correlated with cognitive ageing.

Time to do squats!

inversely correlated I hope?

Correlated as in 'have a mutual relationship or connection'.

I wrote it just because the title was suggesting that stronger legs lead to healthier brain. Whereas the study suggests that healthy lifestyle (better diet, more exercises) lead to healthier brain. Which is to be honest, nothing new.

The term "inversely correlated" is a new one for me, since correlation is two-way, and, as they say, not necessarily causal.

"Inversely correlated" roughly means "correlated in opposite directions", e.g., when one variable goes up, the other goes down, i.e., the correlation factor is negative. It does not imply causation.

I'd be interested to know more precisely whether the subjects were doing more aerobic or anaerobic exercises.

My hunch, given my distant past life as an athlete, is that the correlation is with aerobic exercise and not anaerobic.

Why so? Surely, if the correlation is explicitly with leg power rather than endurance or general fitness, then anaerobic exercise (squats, deadlifts, lunges, leg-presses, as well as running/bike sprints etc) would be the a better driver for building that power rather than aerobic exercise?

That's why I wish they were more explicit when defining the kind of exercise the subjects were engaged in.

My comment was primarily from personal experience. When I did my anaerobic exercise when I used to train, it was heavily anaerobic, where I would do a lot of short bursts of heavy lifting. Later I transitioned to primarily focus on aerobic, where I did a lot of distance swimming. So I think I had a good amount of both extremes to at least provide some insights. Everyone's experience will likely be slightly different.

My hunch, though, is a lot of people who do lifting still get aerobic benefits because they're not training as intensely. So I think I'm speaking more about the extremes of the two types of exercise and not a middle ground.

I agree with you. This is a very good question to ask. If this is from extremely intense workouts, then I would say very few would benefit.

You can build aerobic power (at least to some extent) using anaerobic exercise like sprints / intervals. I would assume a combination of aerobic & anaerobic exercise is probably the healthiest because that way all energy pathways and muscle fibres get activated.

I always think it's crazy to expect humans to function properly without exercise. We see the problems in all other animals when they become sedentary below the level that they would historically be expected to do. Yet somehow some people seem to think we are an exception to this rule.

"Healthiest" is pretty vague in this context, as we're tracking a particular result - mental ability, and possibly neurogenesis.

Walking helps me think because my thighs pump my brain full of smart juice?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-derived_neurotrophic_fac...

Certain types of physical exercise have been shown to markedly (threefold) increase BDNF synthesis in the human brain, a phenomenon which is partly responsible for exercise-induced neurogenesis and improvements in cognitive function

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurobiological_effects_of_phy...

People who regularly participate in aerobic exercise have greater scores on neuropsychological function and performance tests. Examples of aerobic exercise that produce these changes are running, jogging, brisk walking, swimming, and cycling. Exercise intensity and duration are positively correlated with the release of neurotrophic factors and the magnitude of nearly all forms of exercise-induced behavioral and neural plasticity; consequently, more pronounced improvements in measures of neuropsychological performance are observed in endurance athletes as compared with recreational athletes or sedentary individuals. Aerobic exercise is also a potent long-term antidepressant and a short-term euphoriant; consequently, consistent exercise has also been shown to produce general improvements in mood and self-esteem in all individuals.

Interesting, however i'd lean towards muscle mass in general having this effect rather than thighs in particular.

Although being at the lower end of the body might be important in maintaining goid circulation.

The gluteus are the largest muscles.

I imagine this is a factor, even if the development of all the muscles have proportionally the same effect.

Here's the thing, you don't/can't "isolate" development of a muscle, especially a big one

Working out has systemic (anabolic) effects

> you don't/can't "isolate" development of a muscle

This is not true at all. You may be confusing it with the assertion that you can't isolate individual heads of a particular muscle.

Yes, training has some systemic effect through hormonal activity, but muscle anabolism is very highly specific to local stimulus. Otherwise we'd all be just doing curls and watch our legs grow.

For a comically extreme example of localized functional muscle hypertrophy, search for the armwrestler Matthias "Hellboy" Schlitte :)

Yes, if you focus your training on one specific muscle, especially if it's a small one (arms basically) you will cause said muscle to be hypertrophied

But you can bet Matthias Schilitte doesn't stand all day training only said muscles (also he has a genetic problem)

There is probably a correlation between overall health -> leg strength & overall health => brain health / power. Not as revolutionary as I would like it to be.

What I'd like to know is how this boils down wrt work.

If an increase in mental ability represent a greater work-done-per hour; But the cost is time spent exercising -> less time working (maybe somewhat compensated for other positive non-work benefits), Then what would be the perfect amount of exercise to boost productivity?

i.e. would an hour spent exercising pay for itself in productivity boost?

You run out of the ability to be able to do practical mental work long before you run out of the ability to do physical exercise, so I think you're making a false zero-sum comparison of the two.

True, but for me I have other constraints on free time, where I have choice between one or the other; so I am doing other, low-mentally-and-low-physically-taxing tasks in between free-time.

If you want my unsolicited advice I'd say that if you're truly so busy that you can't spare say 4 hours a week (3x a week in the gym) you have bigger things to worry about than how strong legs might impact the long-term health of your brain.

I have more things I could do, than time to do them; prioritising is the issue. There's no such thing as 'spare' time in that context, all free time has things-to-do competing for it.

You can get in a decent intense squat session in only 15 minutes.

The really big time sinks associated with lifting include: - commute to/from gym - changing clothes - another shower

If you don't live in cramped quarters such as SF/NYC, I recommend a small home/garage gym to address these.

The Times produced a great little app for seven-minute workouts, which apparently provide many of the benefits of more intensive exercise regimes and can be done entirely at home. The app: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/projects/workouts/ The science: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/the-scientific-7-mi...

Also, finding new pants that fit. That's been a big time sink for me.

preach!

This would only be a problem if you currently spend every waking hour working effectively. It is now 7:18am my time, and I already worked out for an hour, mostly lifting weights. I didn't cut into my work time at all and I'll be way more capable of working than if I just woke up and started work.

You Could of been working ;-)

Can I flip this question around? If your job is to solve problems and You take a long 2-hour walk through the park, Come back to the office with a really great solution to a big problem Would that not have been worth your company's time?

We still have the problem of proving that 2-hour walks are required to solve large problems...

The whole causation / correlation thing is a big part of this, I think. Many will likely read this and think that there's brain power in your legs, when in fact it's most likely saying that leg health -> physical activity in general -> brain health.

I think the writing about the study should be more clear about this, as I'm sure the original work is.

Full article at https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/441029

Leg strength was tested by "Leg Extensor Power Rig," a custom-built instrument in one of these medical school labs (Nottingham Med School). It's important to remember that for all of these strength tests on average citizens you want an exercise that doesn't require coaching or good form, so no squats, sadly....

That puts disproportional emphasis on quadriceps strength. I had hoped for a broader metric.

I wonder if this would be yet another advantage of using stand-up desks, which are now quite well-known to be stellar for cardiovascular health, but if they also improve leg muscles, could be a boost to one's thinking power? After a day of standing up at a desk, my legs are super tired, so obviously there is serious muscle development going on there.

Oliver Sacks once held the weightlifting record in California: http://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/collection/8-thing...

This is an appealing result. I like exercise and I want to think it's doing good things for my brain, but as with all studies on the mind-body link, it's going to take a great deal more evidence to make it convincing. It's especially premature to conclude anything about exercising the legs in particular.

The study controls for genetics and upbringing. So somewhere among food, fitness, and the entire rest of the world is a contributor to brain health. How helpful is that?

I know getting out for a bike ride certainly activates my brain as long as I'm not going full-out.

You heard that HN? We all need to be doing heavy squats in the gym.

Maybe but not always, kangaroos o frogs do not seem to be much smarter than deer or salamanders...

remember: "associated with" does NOT mean "causes"

having a Mercedes in the driveway might be associated with higher grades in high school ... but you're not going to magically raise your kid's grade by parking a mercedes in the driveway

Well, I guess it depends on how much money you donate to the university.

Yeah, just ask Stephen Hawkings

That's really not how statistics work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com