Hacker News Reader

Comment by david___sh | Hacker News Reader

My view might be classified as 'odd', but this is how I look at this problem, and this is what I ended up doing:

I do not mind living a decade shorter than those ones who are more active than me.

I have tried to be active, but could not fit it into my mentality. Note that I did not say my lifestyle, I said my mentality. I am unable to be active. I was not an active person a a kid, and I am not one as an adult.

If I aggregate all those activity hours together with all the stress about being more active (including following the effectiveness of standing desk news), it could maybe worth a couple of years of my life. I subtracted those years from that one decade, and decided that I am ok with not having that part of my life.

I continue programming 14 hours a day in the sitting style.

View on HN

> Note that I did not say my lifestyle, I said my mentality. I am unable to be active.

This is a fixed mindset vs a growth mindset; that itself is the over-arching lifestyle choice you are making.

Getting in shape is painful, but after 6-8 weeks of a routine, your body adapts and it becomes much easier, even enjoyable to some people. In 2 months, you could have the data to know what your body is actually capable of.

> If I aggregate all those activity hours together.. it could maybe worth a couple of years of my life.

Do you really believe that? Would you tell this to a doctor, or teach this to a child?

I'm no expert, but a few reasons why its very unlikely a linear model applies here: 1) You increase risk of a life-ending event like a heart attack. 2) You are not combatting the effects of stress, which is suspected to be highly related to the feeling of time passing faster as we age. 3) Particularly as you age, your cognitive ability will decline relative to your potential. You'll be a worse programmer than you could be at 40+ - memory, psychomotor speed and executive function in particular will decline vs potential. Simultaneously you will be more likely to get dementia.

I think if you factor these things in your expected years, and expected quality years, of life would change significantly from your estimate. Further, there are plenty of ways to exercise that people consider to be an inherently good use of their time for a variety of reasons.

Except it's not about a decade. Good friend of mine died at 30 from obesity induced cardiomyopathy. Then we talk about quality of life. I run, lift, and generally workout because I want to maintain quality of life as much as length.

My Aunt is 95 and still runs 5k every day. Guess who isn't an invalid in her autumn years?

This. Quality of life also matters. There's a term I encountered: compression of morbidity, where the onset of chronic illnesses is delayed until one is close to death.

"Do squats when you're young so you can stand up from the toilet on your own when you're old."

You made a pretty big leap there from inactivity to obesity.

It's not a big leap from inactivity to cardiovascular disease, though.

Or diabetes.

Or a host of other diseases for which exercise is an often recommended preventative measure.

I didn't say inactivity was healthy, just the post you were responding to gave no indication that the poster was overweight, just inactive. And diabetes is related to weight, not activity.

It's related to both, actually, though primarily diet.

How much of your aunt's outcome was genetic predetermination? I'd wager the majority of it. You either have genetics that are tilted toward extreme longevity, or you don't. If you don't, nothing you can do will get you to 100.

Sounds more like a wager based on rationalizing laziness than a wager informed by knowledge of the research on the factors that contribute to longevity.

So what if she has the genes? You have no information indicating whether or not her active lifestyle added 1 year or ten or twenty or zero. We do know that the research shows a causal relationship between activity level and longevity.

> than a wager informed by knowledge of the research on the factors that contribute to longevity.

Not the longevity that gets you to 100. The stats on centennials shows it's genetics. - see the Forbes article covering the people studying it.

Yes it must be binary. No spectrum of benefits.

Smoking must cause cancer is the same kind of misleading nonsequitor. It misses the point. So no it "mustn't" be anything. It just is.

Cite your claims then.

Show me even one study that says reaching 100 is 100% due to genetics and no amount of dietary or lifestyle changes contribute in any way.

Genes are a good part of whether you get to 100. I'm less certain that genes alone contributed to the aunt being able to run a 5K at age 95. A large part of exercise is in my opinion more improving quality of life.

They OP's logic makes sense if you don't consider quality of life and energy levels. I find exercise makes me more energetic in general and improves clarity of mind.

Some other improvements (possibly attributed to placebo?) are really hard to put in words, but it feels like my body and mind just crave for energy release.

Have you considered trying out activities that you might enjoy for themselves, rather than mainly for "exercise" or because you "should", and try to optimize for enjoyment (not for exercise). Especially, gentle exercise can be a lot more pleasant.

e.g. many thinkers enjoy thinking on slow walks, especially through a park, countryside or bush/woods.

This is great advice. Try lots of activities until you find one you want to do, long term.

>I have tried to be active, but could not fit it into my mentality. Note that I did not say my lifestyle, I said my mentality. I am unable to be active. I was not an active person a a kid, and I am not one as an adult.

This is a very important point. What we do in youth affects how naturally we can do certain activities.

The only thing I'd suggest is not artificially limiting what "active" is. For instance, some people think it means jogging and lots of sweat.

Whereas my exercise is mostly periodic walks, looking at things and thinking, and then barbell exercise. The barbells are a significant mental puzzle as you work on the form and try to recruit muscles to apply more force to a bar moving in an efficient path off the ground.

My dad enjoys golf, which is mostly walking, and plotting how to get a ball to another point.

Some people enjoy bouldering, which mostly involves strategic thinking in terms of how to move across a course on a wall.

And there's many more things that care "active". Others in their replies have emphasized that your later years will involve premature cognitive and health decline, long before you die, if you're sedentary. And they're correct.

But telling you that alone won't change anything. So what I'm adding is to consider that their might be some activity that will help keep your body and mind in shape AND that you enjoy. Finding one might involve talking with a good athletic therapist, or just googling – but I expect there is something.

It's not just losing a decade of life. You are more likely to suffer cognitive decline earlier with a sedentary lifestyle. The mind is not independent from the rest of the body.

This issue that it's not just an exchange of years for being sedentary--the quality of your years will be significantly worse that that of active people--chronic pains, reduced mobility, etc.--and the difference will widen over time as you age.

Why don't you try very very short sessions of interval training some days (e.g. a few sets of burpees) and short lifting (say with a kettlebell) or isometrics (e.g. with a rubber band) sets other days?

This won't alter your lifestyle, and it may bring many health benefits with minimal effort. Plus you will experience mental benefits towards those long coding sessions.

You will change your mind when you're in your mid-40s. But by then it'll be too late. There's nothing worse (and in the US, more expensive) than a roster of debilitating health problems you're making a downpayment on right now with your lack of exercise and 14 hour sitting sessions.

It's good to know oneself and be ok with that. Props to you my friend but do think about the people that might want you in their lives a bit longer. They surely would appreciate the extra time.

Except on top of living a decade less, you'll also be riddled with health problems your entire life.

> I have tried to be active, but could not fit it into my mentality. Note that I did not say my lifestyle, I said my mentality. I am unable to be active. I was not an active person a a kid, and I am not one as an adult.

I'm not a physician at all, but this sounds similar to a friend who was finally diagnosed with thyroid hypofunction. She now gets hormone pills and is way more energetic. Do you also have low blood pressure? Can't stay up without two coffees in the morning?

It is not just 10 years less, it is a worse lifestyle as well. I am guessing you are overweight? You still have to do things outside, so you still do suffer.

davey, get up, do a pushup.

I know you probably can't do one, I've been there. Do a sissy pushup on your knees, until you can do more.

if you're stuck on a problem, the brain rush will feel good afterwards.

> I continue programming 14 hours a day in the sitting style.

But aerobic exercise might make you a better programmer:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-exercise-boosts-intell...

I wonder how old you are (not asking though) and/or how long you've been sitting/programming 14 hours a day.

A decade ago, I could do the same. Now I wish I hadn't because my back and shoulders are so messed up.

Interestingly (maybe), I usually find standing less painful than sitting these days.

I wouldn't worry about it. Every year there's a study that contradicts the last one.

Coffee is bad for you, wait coffee is good for you. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/17/coffee-health-benef...

Vitamins are good for you, no wait vitamins are bad for you. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161208-why-vitamin-supplem...

Being fat is bad, no, really being fat is actually perfectly fine. https://qz.com/550527/obesity-paradox-scientists-now-think-t...

No one can make up their mind so I stopped paying attention a long time ago.

> Every year there's a study that contradicts the last one.

That's from Astroturfing by <_INSERT_INDUSTRY_LOBBY_NAME_HERE_>

Every time a real study with facts comes out saying X_____ is bad for you, the Corporations and Special Interest Lobbyists working on behalf of X____ will astroturf the media with "No really, X____ is good for you"

X_____ = Coffee, Diary, Wine, Eggs, Wheat, Soy, Stevia, ..... you get the idea.

Required Viewing: Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDx => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

Well, qz and huffpo can FRO in the first place...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com