Climbing 50 steps a day can cut your risk of heart disease
news.tulane.edu
news.tulane.edu
There’s no reason to be a couch potato and just get up to walk 50 steps a day. This is a terrible, terrible opening paragraph. We need to get over this “choose this, not that” meme when it comes to making healthy choices.
I think after several generations that experience mortality at younger ages because of obesity, there might be an honest discussion of how bad being sedentary and overweight is for your health. Until then you have liberal rhetoric equating any acknowledgement of this reality to an accusation that someone is a bad person for being fat.
I think news people tried to throw that at the wall for a little while, but it didn't stick.
Israel isn't just taboo. They actively destroy opposition by getting people fired, prevent them from getting funding (important in politics), and have entire call centers staffed tasked with forum sliding and demoralization. See the JIDF (it never stopped contrary to the lies on Wikipedia).
There's a move to destigmatise obesity, but the academics who support that still want to lower obesity, which is not the same thing as other protected groups.
Meanwhile Fewer kids are walking or biking to school than ever before, setting them up for a lifetime of sedentarism and it's consequences. The obesity rate will continue it's steady march upwards and to the right.
Our diets haven't gotten meaningfully worse in the past quarter century. per capita sugar consumption peaked in the mid 90s, but obesity rates have continued to rise, steadily.
Ah, yes, the approach that ignores any of the psychological root causes of diseases that are clearly partially psychological.
It also happens that telling people things in an empathy less way can backfire. The solution to obesity is not as simple as your experience makes you think - or it would already be a solved problem.
The problem is that we have no strategy for long term weight loss that actually works. This is probably related to the fact that we have no idea what is causing the obesity epidemic to begin with. There are tons of theories, though.
No there is a growing segment of the population that has no idea being sedentary leads to weight gain, as well as a segment that thinks being overweight is ok or healthy. Perhaps you're not as in-touch with the rhetoric of the younger generation.
I think there's a huge difference between Israel the country and government and Jews for example.
Criticising Jews is generalisation because they're not one entity and not all the same. One Jewish person is not responsible for the actions of the others. So yeah criticism is automatically discrimination and in this case antisemitism. You can criticise individuals for their actions but not generalise that over a whole people.
The state of Israel, well that is a singular entity with a clear power structure and certainly can be criticized for its actions. I don't think that amounts to antisemitism. Because Israel isn't made up of only Jews.
And trans people, why do people feel the need to criticize them? Let them be who they are, they're not harming anyone. Maybe your holy book says it's wrong, well you can apply it to yourself but not others who don't follow your beliefs.
And yeah obesity is bad. I'm obese as well and I know that. It's just very hard to do something about it, the same way you can't tell a depressed person to just be happy. Some people have a huge tendency to gain weight and overeat. People without this problem underestimate the difficulty.
The criticism is this: a woman's right to a single-sex spaces cannot co-exist with the desire of a male to enter these spaces based on his claims of 'gender identity'. When the desires of the latter are prioritised above the needs of the former, this causes actual harm.
And really, they're not coming into the stall with anyone else. There's still private space there. So the purported problem just appears at the sink. Many places have unisex bathrooms now too. And/or not gender-matching cleaning staff.
Also it's kinda rude misgendering trans females. They aren't males.
Maybe there is a gender which is biologically male, mentally female with lesbian tendencies, and they want to feel intimate that way. So why not?
It's not some pill you just pop. It's a difficult path of psychological evaluations and hormonal and surgical procedures. Expensive and very invasive and it's not granted on a whim. You really have to be female in your identity.
I really don't see any CIS man taking hormones and surgery that make them more feminine just to get a peek in the girls' bathroom. They don't desecrate themselves that way. If they want to peek there's easier ways, like putting up cameras (sadly it happens) or putting on a maintenance overall or whatever.
And for feeling intimate there's clubs and bars for that :) In my experience trans people usually tend to date other trans people or at least those in "LGBTQI+ and allies" circles. Because they know about the difficulties and feel more of a connection.
1. Males who identify as women are a heterogenous group that mostly consist of those who have not undergone the 'whole transition' (by which I assume you mean the cosmetic surgery on their genitals, alongside long-term hormonal intervention), with a significant proportion having no intention of doing so. Notably this group includes many males who do not pass as women at all, and who do not seem to put much effort into achieving that aim. Yet still insist that they should have access to women's single-sex spaces based on their 'gender identity'.
2. Women's bathrooms aren't the only single-sex space that males who identify as women desire to enter. Others include: prisons, locker rooms, refuges from domestic abuse and sexual violence, nude spas, sports competitions, support groups for issues that only apply to the female body like pregnancy, menstruation and menopause. Essentially any single-sex space may be coveted by these males.
3. It isn't sufficient to consider this issue only from the perspective of these males and the fulfillment of their desires. The women who these single-sex spaces are actually intended for, and who need these spaces for various reasons including safety, dignity and privacy, must be recognised too, and really should be the group centred in any discussion of this.
Also regarding the objection to 'misgendering': this is another example of how women's spaces are imposed upon by these males. In this case, attempting to occupy the same linguistic space, and by doing so, removing language that may be used to distinguish them in discussions such as this.
Yes, there are plenty of men who do this.
Misgendering? This isn't reddit the people on HN are not likely to kowtow to your lunatic revisionism, no matter how much anyone gets downvoted.
What helped me was a coworker who told me about his yearly fast, how he prepared and the difficulties (the first two days are the hardest). After the 5-day fast, I found it way easier to ignore my hunger and start IF (now I mostly eat less tbh).
If you want to try, here are my adices:
- If you have big health troubles (if you're diabetic), ask your doctor. It might be a bad idea.
- Do your fast during spring, late spring specifically. Sun helps a lot with mood and motivation Prepare how you enter the fast.
- The previous 3 days, I was on a mostly ketogenic diet (greens, eggs, poultry, meat, butter, avocado, falafels)
- No medecine. See point 1. Medicine will break your fast. Prior to the fast I took nutrients (vitamin D, magnesium) (I did a blood test before obviously).
- Prepare to drink a lot of water. I added lemon juice in small quantities (for electrolytes, and taste). Tea might be OK too.
- The worst day was the second (the first was easy either). I wasn't able to do anything. Prepare for it, stock interesting books, play video games, find ways to forgot about your hunger. It will physically hurt. Each time it does, drink water. Also, prepare a book rather than screen time on the evening, falling asleep sooner will help.
- Once I passed the second day I was mostly okay. I was pretty tired and weak the 3rd, but I was able to exercise and go out the 4th and 5th (my libido also increased a lot, beware). I stopped the 5th day because it was my object (and I was visiting friends the rest of the week), but I could have lasted longer, and probably worked without issue from the 4th day onward.
Sorry again if it's unsolicited. Hopefully you find something that works for you (and I'll be happy if my dices helped anyone who was in my situation).
But it wasn't as bad as I expected, the Hunger feelings just went away. But when I did eat it was very hard to not over-indulge because cravings returned.
When someone is looking up the mountain, trying to start climbing its far less intimidating to start with a 50 step mountain, not a 10,000 step one.
This isn't about appealing to, or helping you. It's about appealing to and helping those that wouldn't have otherwise walked those 50 steps.
From the study, near the top:
> Participants who stopped stair climbing between baseline and resurvey had a higher risk of ASCVD compared with those who never climbed stairs.
Additionally, your comment’s assumptions about my lifestyle are inaccurate, but that’s irrelevant to discussing the article and study.
Should I be climbing stairs instead? I never climb stairs near me, I would have to literally go out of my way to find some. (Full disclosure, I sit for work, except for when I was teaching, so I run to try to make up for it. I still do not feel very healthy as I run for say an hour, then sit for like eight, or ten.... "sitting is the new smoking" is not helping).
50 steps per day is basically nothing relative to your running schedule. However, it’s a significant step up from a sedentary lifestyle as shown by this study.
For someone like you, ignore these studies. It’s more important to do what you enjoy because that’s going to translate to more and longer engagement. The exact exercise doesn’t really matter.
When I lived in San Francisco, I walked all over the place, including up and down hills. I also lived on the 8th floor and usually took the elevator up. I'd get pretty winded if I walked up the stairs. I imagine I would have had a much easier time walking up the stairs if I did it often.
I would keep doing cardio, but have some varieties.
I realized long ago that my running is mostly going up and down hills. 10,000' of gain/loss a week wasn't out of the ordinary, with some weeks being 60-70,000' in total (this is an extreme). Those 10k weeks could be as little as 20 miles. I'm very satisfied by my workouts.
If you have a GOAL, then you can think about specific training. But you do you my dude.
I think running is particularly effective for health because it builds your cardiovascular system to be strong enough to move your body weight at high intensity for longer periods of time.
I've been doing cardio on a stationary bike for years and decided I needed to start running after going on a hike in Nevada in the heat and feeling like I completely redlined my heart while my friends that are skinnier and do 0 cardio were fine. Just completing couch 2 5k dropped my resting heartrate by ~10bpm from 70bpm to 60. Walking used to get my heartrate to 115bpm and now I'm under 100. Also, I was able to cycle at the higher intensity while in zone 2 for longer.
Anyway, I definitely think you should keep up your running habit, especially if you enjoy it.
Then you can convert to calories and show someone how much "fat they burned" (close enough to true) at ~3600 calories/lb
I started trail running this year and the benefits to my overall health, muscle balance, and injury rehab has been massive. Running over uneven terrain is maybe the most natural form of movement and your body reflects that.
This article is really for people who can't do a harder form of exercise. It's showing climbing stairs as an easier thing to do than go for a run, if you can't go for a run
It is useful "especially among those unable to achieve the current physical activity recommendations"
If you can do proper exercise of course do that!
The new paradigm for health and longevity the focus is on frequency of excersice/movement instead of duration.
This research collaborates the new paradigm.
Separate from just running, it makes other parts of life more comfortable:
* Walking around is just.. easier - in a weird way, running has mostly solved my knee quirks from when I was younger (when combined with foam rolling and some strength exercises)
* When travelling, I can easily hike 5-15 miles each day with no real issues
* I feel more alert the rest of the day (I like to say that it's my coffee)
* Other sports are easier to get into (skiing, biking, etc) because I have a decent cardio base
> Should I be climbing stairs instead?
And they never mention whether they actually like running.
As someone who likes running a lot I’d never think of giving it up because some random article said climbing a few flights of stairs is better.
What I've noticed, when in the past I was a weightlifting maximalist and running minimalist, is that after running I've noticed a large endurance benefit in other sports. For example: windsurf hydrofoiling. In light winds it takes a lot of full body effort to pump the board/foil and sail to get out of the water and flying. I noticed how gassed I could get. After throwing running in the mix my capacity to get going without getting totally gassed has gone up substantially.
I would hope that would also translate into other long term benefits for health (provided I continue to cut back on drinking and improve my diet otherwise...)
I also have done a lot of reading, as a lot of my friends tell me running is bad for your knees. As far as my reading of data goes, there is practically no amount of "bad running"... unless your body says "stop" and you keep going.
Citation needed lol. I think it’s around 30 miles of running a week which many many many many recreational runners have little trouble maintaining.
Yeah I mean if it hurts take a break.
I personally like to take one rest day, but it's not necessary if you adjust the intensity throughout the week to account for never having a full rest day.
Could be relvant, worth knowing
Then there's also this:
> Researchers also found that those who stopped climbing stairs daily during the study showed a 32% higher risk of cardiovascular disease compared to those who never reported climbing stairs.
So I guess if we ever move we're actually worse off in the long run
Careful about inferring causality here.
What kind of active person suddenly stops being active? You presumably don't want to be that kind of person... but the stopping isn't necessarily a causal factor of the cardiovascular events (and the initial "being active" seems still far less likely to be a causal factor).
Mine has an elevator though, installed in the main lightwell :) it's so appealing to not walk all the time...
I guess between the after effects of C19 and having a useless knee, both of which make climbing stairs a horrendous experience, I don't have to worry about getting towards the age when they'll consider knee replacement a good option[1]!
[1] Something to do with them only being good for 15-20 years and the second one almost never working correctly.
The amount of improvement I've gotten from 20 minutes on a rowing machine 5 days a week - and let's be clear, that's basically all I do on the logic of "I can spare 1 YouTube video of time (and still watch the video)" is insane.
I have access to a Concept2 and I rowed for a year in high school (i.e. I have the basic stroke form down) but I find that every time I try to start a rowing routine I over-do it in the first few sessions and end up dropping it.
I've probably naturally gotten faster at it, but the basic idea is to keep any steady pace and just make sure I do it.
Most of the basic research on this tends to suggest the same thing: you need 15-30 minutes a day of mildly aerobic exercise, and you get a big boost in calorie demand per day and feel better. That's what I'm aiming for: and for me rowing has the additional benefit that it's very compatible if you suffer from IBS/other gut pain things (which I do) which always knocks out running for me.
If you could only choose to exercise when young OR when old, the latter is probably more beneficial. When you're young you have a built-in amount of fitness, unfortunately this is not the case for old people and so exercise probably has a more significant impact for them.
Five flights of stairs? I'm pretty sure I average thirty at least.
Sadly I've found it causes knee pain. This is despite a long history of leg training with no knee issues. It's a real shame but just the old story of not focussing on a single exercise/movement too much I guess.
But in more serious tone, I made a point long ago to run up the stairs whenever I can, I was in my 30s and 40s. There were younger people who couldn't get to 2nd or 3rd floor without getting seriously winded. So practice is all we need.
according to the survey they checked that they walked and really really like free 2009 Nissan Altimas. In comparison to the control group it looks like walking is different.
Running downhill is a great way to get DOMS because of the increased eccentric contraction.
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(2...
When the study says that there is an association, the causation might also be the other way round, ie. a higher disposition of heart disease leads to people not climbing a lot of stairs. The last sentence of the abstract points into this direction: "Participants who stopped stair climbing between baseline and resurvey had a higher risk [32%] of ASCVD compared with those who never climbed stairs." When stopping stair climbing is worse correlated with ASCVD risk than not even starting stair climbing, one might suspect that there are other hidden causes that govern the correlation, such as people getting old or sick, which is their real cause for their increased ASCVD risk, and thus move into the basement or use the elevator more often, which in turn decreases their climbing stairs a lot. If this is the case, than there is no proof that climbing 50 steps a day can cut your risk of heart disease at all. We just have a correlation, no causation.
To really find out whether there exists a causation, an intervention study would be necessary: we would need a representative sample of people of the particular group we are interested in (in this case people who do only climb very few steps a day). One half of the sample is not changing anything; the other half from now on consistently climbs 50 steps a day for a certain period of time. Afterwards we compare the two. (Ideally we would like to perform a double-blind experiment[2], but this seems impossible in this case.)
[1] https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(2...
As you say, of course there's an association, it is harder for sick people to climb stairs. We expect disease and stair climbing to be inversely correllated.
The press release is as bad as saying that carrying umbrellas can increase rainfall.
> Researchers also found that those who stopped climbing stairs daily during the study showed a 32% higher risk of cardiovascular disease compared to those who never reported climbing stairs.
Cardiovascular disease is one of the things that would stop people from climbing stairs.
I wonder what the mechanism that the burst activity causes to engage. Dislodging plaque? Pressurizing arteries?
[1] I know, its just 32.768% :-)
[2] Note to self: even on a Sunday, no jokes :-)