Hacker News Reader

Comment by zeamaize | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com