Cardiorespiratory fitness is associated with lower anger and anxiety | Hacker News Reader

Cardiorespiratory fitness is associated with lower anger and anxiety

linkinghub.elsevier.com

108 pointsPaulHoule117 comments

Exercise is good, everyone knows. The problem is advising people to exercise doesn't work and doesn't scale. Gyms are for people who have plenty of intrinsic motivation and money and time.

To improve physical activity at the population scale and over a lifetime, it literally has to be built into the design of the cities, so people get enough exercise while walking to work or grabbing groceries.

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/activity-inequality...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPUlgSRn6e0&ab_channel=NotJu...

I think it would also help to not have everyone working so damn much.

Or maybe work harder in the physical sense.

AI will help by doing all the intellectual work.

talk to your ai while you walk?

treadmill that only outputs tokens while you walk it

RTO is also a factor for some... when I was working full remote I had the time and energy to attend an HIIT class 4 days a week. I was in the best shape of my life.

Since starting a position that requires me in the office for 3 or more days a week, I no longer have the energy (or schedule) to attend since I spend ~120-160m in traffic. Between that and the lack of proximity to my own kitchen affecting my dietary choices, I've gained almost 40lbs in 2 years.

All of this is of course avoidable with self-discipline, but self-discipline wanes as you get more exhausted from your day.

Why do you choose to live this way? Such a long commute sounds life-sucking. Consider moving to a smaller city.

where you can get a job dictates what city you live near, how much you are paid determines how close you can live to that city, and how much distance you want to keep from your neighbors sets the density you can stand.

Moving to a smaller city changes your job, which changes how much you are paid, which changes how close you can live to the city, and your neighbors may still suck. It's likely that you'll end up in the same soul-sucking commute life that you just left.

That's what a lot of people did when "WFH"

If I didn't value my career at all, that would certainly be an option.

> since I spend ~120-160m in traffic.

You went from one extreme to the other. 2 to 2.5 hours of commute each day is very unusual.

Not if you live in a large metro area.

I have found stair walking a good, zero-cost, easily accessible and fast-to-execute means of exercise in urban areas. You can also scale-up/scale-down intensity and duration to your heart's content.

or you can just buy a kettlebell and do swings for as long as you can last

That requires intrinsic motivation, which is part of OPs point. If you build a walkable/bikeable city, you raise the exercise floor for everyone.

> If you build a walkable/bikeable city, you raise the exercise floor for everyone.

That requires intrinsic motivation for people to want to leave their house. I'm not kidding, if jobs are going to go away we're all gonna become super fat. Thank god for Ozempic I guess.

>>If you build a walkable/bikeable city, you raise the exercise floor for everyone.

There are ripped men in prison.

>>That requires intrinsic motivation

How do you make some one do a thing, they don't want to do?

What does “there are ripped men in prison” have to do with anything? Those men have intrinsic motivation for working out, but not everyone does, that’s kind of my whole point here.

>> how do you make someone do a thing they don’t want to do?

You make it part of the fabric of daily life. If it’s easier to walk than it is to take a car, more people will walk. Of course there will be those who cannot or refuse to, and that’s okay, but systemic changes can lift everyone up on average.

> How do you make some one do a thing, they don't want to do?

You assume what you feel you want to do is intrinsic and not based on your environment. You are a product of your environment. If we change the environment, you will change with it.

By "you" I of course mean large populations over the course of decades.

Yeah, during covid and little bit after I was in amazing shape because I was able to go on nice long bike rides a few times a week. It got me thinking what would our society feel like if everyone was able to exercise?

Hear hear! Exercise at scale is an urban design problem.

You don't even need to reinvent a walkable city, just look at any medieval historical town that is say ~500 years old, almost untouched, and has restricted traffic today (possibly with no public transport whatsoever). These towns are a pure joy to live in, they are walkable with no other options, quiet, pleasant and overall healthy to live in in all respects.

We keep rediscovering that we're happier and more fulfilled when we live in ways that are more like how we've been living for most of the last million years. Also we are disgusted by our ancestors and look down upon them.

Cities and agriculture have existed for under 10,000 years. I don't think we would be happier living as hunter gatherers.

Hunter gatherers. Eww.

We lack basic education in fitness, really, we do! They don't teach it in schools, but really just walking your 8-10k steps a day + simple own-weight exercises at home do wonders! Gym is fine for those who like it and can afford it (time, money), but by far not the only solution. We need to educate ourselves better. Plus, better cities, I am with you on that one.

I find this confusing, but most people do not like to exercise. I think most people know how.

For those people it's better to call it "being active" or "moving" or just "not sitting all day".

There's way too much emphasis on gyms, workout programs, PRs, and difficult fitness. Most people just need to move a little more.

It's a tough sell after decades of propaganda. According to the CDC, over 75% of Americans are seriously out of shape[1], and 40% are obese[2]. They typically spend an hour a day commuting by car, which robs them of an easy opportunity to get a little exercise (and which is also physically dangerous in an immediate sense and a form of long-term psychological torture as evidenced by driving behavior at rush hour).

1. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db443.htm

2. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db508.htm

There are a ton of ways to exercise that are fun, people just fail to see that. Hiking (free), rucking (only requires a backpack), climbing/bouldering (free outside, money in a gym), sports (free minus ball cost), kayaking, canoeing, walking your dog, etc.

Education is not the problem. People know sugar is bad, people know cigarettes are bad, people know alcohol is bad, still millions use these substances every day.

What works best is to find some form of exercise that you really enjoy. I will get up at 5 in the morning, skip diner, skip appointments when i get a change to exercise, just because i enjoy it so much.

In addition, what also helps is to ensure normal activities require excercise. I will walk to the shop every day for groceries, walk the dog every day, cycle into town, best if you can cycle to work.

> Education is not the problem.

He already knows. A lot of americans are very defensive about their shortcomings.

If you want impartial accurate truth, the easiest place to get it is in scientific studies (like the one I posted).

I dont understand your response? I'm replying to a message that literally states: "We lack basic education in fitness ... We need to educate ourselves better". Sounds to me he's stating that education IS the problem?

Zoom out a bit. Person A posts a real study, person B says “nuh huh” -- they’re clearly not having the same discussion on the same level.

I’m saying often person B (American) is just being emotional/defensive, or gaslighting like their president.

No, listen to what OP said. People know that exercise is good. Everything else is standing in the way.

The solution to everything is not education. That’s just what people who have been filtered through the system with good grades and a high education think. Their good habits are more correlated with their income than with their informedness.

Good habits are a type of education really.

Schools should start with a mandatory walking session. The act itself can demonstrate its value

I'm all for walkable/bikeable cities, but that doesn't solve the intrinsic motivation problem either.

I live in an area that has a lot of walkable and bikeable things nearby. There are a lot of people who drive anyway. Some because they're older, others because they have kids, others because they have busy schedules, and some are just lazy.

So while I'm in favor of better city layout, I don't think this would be a magic solution.

> Gyms are for people who have plenty of intrinsic motivation and money and time.

There are a lot of ways to work out without a gym. You can go for a walk or run around your neighborhood or even do a lot of workout programs at home. There are many easy workout systems that don't even take a lot of time and are easy to get started if you're not in shape.

> I live in an area that has a lot of walkable and bikeable things nearby. There are a lot of people who drive anyway.

The less warm and fuzzy part of this urban-design approach is that it can't just be about making things easier to walk to, it also has to be about making them harder to drive to. For instance, by making parking limited and/or expensive. People tend not to like that idea, although I think there's a good likelihood they'd actually be happy with it if not for the meta-awareness of having "lost" parking.

People don't like that idea because it's highly exclusionary.

It only sounds good to younger people who don't have any disabilities, kids, grandparents who want to come along, or any number of other valid reasons to walk.

It's also highly indicative of the weather where you're from. Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait for the light rain to stop. Move somewhere with harsh winters and the moralizing about people driving places stops making sense quickly.

When I was in SF, the coworkers who drove in were those who lived outside of the city who were trying to save money and raise family. Buying a home in the city is impossible for these people (and me). Mostly less prestigious jobs, like cleaners, technicians, office managers. Not the App guys making 300k living in the Marina.

It's often an unintended tax on the poor.

IDK maybe there's some middle ground where we beef up public transport while beefing up parking at stations.

That's a problem of not building enough walkable areas relative to how many people want to live in walkable areas, leading to them being expensive because of many people competing for scarce resources.

Car-centric infrastructure is incredibly expensive, so there's no inherent reason for walkable areas to be more expensive.

This might sound reasonable, but it's a solved problem in Europe. They have plenty of old/disabled people and harsh winters there too. Many parts are de-emphasizing cars.

What you've just said is a common refrain, if you haven't already seen it please take a look at these two videos that attempt to address part of what you're saying. I found them very interesting when I came across them years ago and it changed my view of what's possible or even good!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo "Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure" (old people, disabled people)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU "Why Canadians Can't Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can)" (frozen Finnish winters)

So Canadians bike less in winter than some Finns (not all, as the author of the video himself mentions that Oulu stands out among Finnish cities in this regard) yet those Finns make only 12% of winter trips by bike. That means the vast majority of winter trips they make (88%) are not by bike. In a small town, which is 12x6 miles judging by google maps yet has 590 miles of bike paths. If anything this proves cycling in winter is not an option for the vast majority of population.

And yes, the Dutch have their bike paths and bike without helmets, we all know that. The secret is the lack of elevation and living in crumped cities: on average a Dutch person bikes 3km per day [1].

1. https://english.kimnet.nl/documents/2024/01/10/cycling-facts...

It's utterly fascinating you wrote that and yet could not make the right conclusion.

"In a small town, which is 12x6 miles judging by google maps yet has 590 miles of bike paths."

"not all, as the author of the video himself mentions that Oulu stands out among Finnish cities in this regard"

The right conclusion here is that infrastructure and its maintenance is clearly the defining factor. This really shouldn't be surprising.

Consider this: how many trains do you think passed through the areas rail tracks are at before the tracks were built? Or: how many trains need to pass through an area before we can justify the cost of building train tracks there?

You simply can't point to just any winter cycling stats without first making sure the infrastructure is there. "Cycling in winter just ain't working out!" — no, you literally are not putting in the minimum of effort — "we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas" vibes.

And here's the kicker: You assumed these statistics are from a city that's a cycling paradise, but I'm willing to bet Oulu is a car-infested shithole, just like all of the Netherlands is. No, I'm not kidding in the slightest. And it's pretty much confirmed in the video the parent linked: [1].

Sure, those areas are as good as it gets at this time, but they're nothing to what things should look like, so since your conclusions are based on faulty assumptions, they are automatically invalid.

What these cycling-friendly areas are doing is slowly grinding away at the overbearing behemoth that is the already existing car infrastructure with the eventual goal of getting to at least parity. But they're still decades of work away.

The simplest example is free parking. You expect to get to take up 2m x 5m of public space with your private property for free and forever, almost anywhere in every city in the world. If anyone so much as touches it, they're strictly legally liable. That's normal though, right? Yeah...

Another, literally the snow plowing mentioned in the video: [2]. Imagine you woke up one day, got in your car to drive to work and... uh oh! There's 20cm of snow on the road! Can you imagine the uproar?

I sure can't, because 20cm of snow is normal on cycle paths in 99.9% of the world. And you're comparing those two realities with each other. So "not a lot of people cycle in winter" is actually "not a lot of people cycle through 20cm of snow". No shit.

Overall, the amount of information in the very video the parent linked you just straight up ignored makes me think you either didn't watch it, or didn't want to pay attention to a lot of the points made, like the one on population density: [3].

> yet those Finns make only 12% of winter trips by bike

Yeah, during Finnish winters. How many countries do you think this directly applies to? If 12% of Finns during their harsh winters can cycle just fine in -20C weather conditions then what does that say about the cycling stats of e.g. California?

> The secret is the lack of elevation...

I like to quip that bikes have gears for a reason and it's worth learning to use them, but these days the existence of e-bikes and e-scooters nullifies this argument entirely.

> ...and living in crumped cities: on average a Dutch person bikes 3km per day.

Yes, we're talking about cities here. So, the purpose of pointing out that biking over long distances in say, rural areas, is not viable is what exactly? We can pivot to talking about trains instead if you'd like...

[1]: https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?t=182

[2]: https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?t=260

[3]: https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?t=192

Is this an AI slop or you just don't understand English? I pointed out that a city with tons of infrastructure still has the vast majority of winter trips (and other trips too, but bike ridership drops in winter) not done on bikes and you are insisting that there is no infrastructure...

> People don't like that idea because it's highly exclusionary.

I disagree with you here- you have it backwards. It's cars that are exclusionary. Kids can't be around car traffic unsupervised, because car traffic is very dangerous. Old people become fat and frail only because they're robbed of exercise by a car-centric lifestyle. Blind people can't drive. Kids can't drive. Old people can't drive. By shaping cities around cars we doom the vast majority for the sake of a very small number of people, and many of them would probably be healthier and safer getting a little exercise and enjoying the excellent public transport that results from shifting a massive budget for car infrastructure to public transport.

I think you're confusing a walkable city with a nonwalkable city in which people are forced to walk anyway. As other commenters mentioned, in many ways making a city more walkable benefits the groups you describe.

Calling everything but cars exclusionary is mildly hilarious.

First of all, you're simply forgetting about public transport. That's needed too and pretty much covers all your concerns.

However...

1. The disabled? How many of those do you think are disabled in just the right ways to still be able to drive? You know "disabled" doesn't just mean "missing a limb", right?

So uh, if the only option is to drive and someone's disabled and therefore can't drive, what do they... do?

Anyhow: [1]

2. Kids? How many kids do you see driving cars around?

You know 10+ year olds can just... bike on their own, right? Like, to school, etc.? [2] [3] [4]

Below that age, just bike them around? [5] ;)

> Forcing

You know nobody's forcing you to do anything, right? Like, you can still own and use your car, there are some very valid use cases best served by them.

For example, around half of the Dutch own a car. They just don't use them as much for really dumb purposes, like driving 5km to a grocery store, because the nearest one is within walking or cycling distance.

The problem is that driving has been so heavily subsidized, that we've come to take it for granted and are now truly shocked when asked to pay more to even somewhat offset the real costs. And I'm afraid there's no viable path forward that doesn't involve eventually paying in full.

> Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait for the light rain to stop.

Yeah, the Netherlands is quite known for its good weather...

> Move somewhere with harsh winters and the moralizing about people driving places stops making sense quickly.

I'm there. And? Literally the only issue is that the pedestrian/cycling infrastructure just does not get snow plowed either at all or at 1% of the priority the roadway gets. Seriously, the asphalt in winter looks basically the same as during summer but the sidewalks and cycle ways are full of snow, often literally pushed there from the roadway!

So yeah, you won't see many cyclists cycling around in 15+ cm of snow, since it's literally impossible. Cycling on ice is quite risky too. But, as evidenced by snowprints, some people cycle regardless!

[1]: https://youtu.be/xSGx3HSjKDo?t=42

[2]: https://youtu.be/oHlpmxLTxpw?t=18

[3]: https://youtu.be/gpRO7vIM_VQ?t=638

[4]: https://youtu.be/UpyfmB1aKfk?t=308

[5]: https://youtu.be/rQhzEnWCgHA?t=84

How does that change anything? Walk to the shops and buy a donut and you'll still be at a net negative. Most people who are overweight are eating far to much and a bit of walking each day isnt going to beat their diet. The reason people recommend gyms and good diets is because its very time efficient. 45mins in the gym beats out hours of light walking.

There are tons of important health effects of exercise beyond caloric balance.

Absolutely true. I lost a belt notch when I visited Japan for two weeks and walked everywhere. That being said redesigning cities is hard. It's a lot easier to meet people where they are: in front of the TV. Kettlebells, dumbbells, resistance bands, treadmills, and bike trainers are all great for doing whilst one marathons the latest season of "Real Housewives of Transylvania" or "Star Trek Impulsivity" or whatever.

Affordability is a real question as a lot of this gear is costly for the average consumer - I wonder whether a government health stipend would help with this.

> That being said redesigning cities is hard.

It's not that hard, it's just time-consuming. Takes ~30 years. Roads/buildings/etc break down eventually, you just need to incrementally design for the better new version instead of rebuilding the older version. Plenty of those European countries are doing it.

99.9% of exercise can be done outside of a gym. Walk, hike, run, cycle, swim, ski, paddle, play soccer, basketball, skate, play tennis, hockey, archery... The idea that exercise equals paying a subscription is so American.

I would love to learn why some people can self-motivate to exercise while others would need coercive interventions. Such as to build cities in a way that some exercise is inevitable.

Or put differently: is there really nothing that can be done to shift people into being self-motivated?

I think you have the coercion direction reversed. If there was a choice - if people could easily walk places - they probably wouldn’t buy expensive cars.

This study seems both wildly underpowered, chooses relatively bad methods for analysis (splitting between below average and above average, really?) and has far too many comparisions (they claim to have used bonferroni corrections where necessary, and then don't mention it again).

All in all, it's a pretty good example of modern psychological research. Bad statistics, hyped up findings and (probably) wild over-generalisation about what this tiny study means for society/the world/my research funding.

I think the biggest flaw here is around the measurement of VO2 max. So they first ask people how often they exercise (cos no-one ever lies) and then use a linear equation to map that to VO2 max. Granted, the equation has lines for age and sex, so it's not entirely useless, but if you're only going to sample 40 students then why not try to measure things a little better?

The most unintentionally hilarious thing about their methods section is that age was not normally distributed (according to a shapiro test). They sampled students, so of course it's not going to be normally distributed. Students have a well-known bias in age.

Ultimately, regardless of whether or not this finding turns out to be true (I like the idea of it, myself) this study provides absolutely no evidence for the effect.

Note: I have a PhD in psychology, but left the field a decade plus ago. I'm both horrified by this study, and also having a lot of fun poking holes in it, maybe I should try to get back into reviewing? ;)

I am pretty confident from my own experience that the study’s conclusion is broadly true. But the study leaves open one obvious alternative explanation: people who have enough free time to exercise regularly (and exercise was used as a stand-in for fitness level, it doesn’t look like they actually measured anything else) could have less stressful and anger-inducing lives overall.

Alternatively: People who spent their time regularly exercising instead of arguing on Facebook or X, have lower anger and anxiety.

Which introduces variables such as: "believes in righteous anger"

And alternatively again, you need to have lower anger and anxiety to engage in excercise!

I'm sure all of this is an inseparable mess.

But it doesn't affect the recommendation does it? Everyone should aim to be physically fit and that involves engaging in cardiorespiratory exercise.

I thought of “people who have enough time to exercise because they don’t have to work multiple jobs in an attempt to scrape together enough to make ends meet”.

Under 10 million people in the US (less than 6% of workforce) work multiple jobs.

Pretty much everything related to exercise is a direct or indirect positive effect for health.

Stress relief, tiredness leading to better sleep, physiological effects of muscle gain, physiological effects of weight loss, social interaction in shared spaces, exposure to sunlight, push to improve diet in pursuit of fitness goals, better self image, social effects of becoming more physically attractive…

Anecdotally, I started lifting again a few weeks ago. Took a few years off due to Covid complications, but was previously exercising regularly.

Walked up to the bar stressed about all sorts of things, everything is expensive, car is making weird chafing noises when I make sharp turns, politics, this and that.

Did 3 sets of 5 deadlifts with a 60kg bar. Barely any weight on the bar since I didn't want to annihilate my joints. Regardless, as I finished the sets, all that stress was just gone, and it stayed away for days. I was calmer, clearer, more present.

I don't think I have fewer reasons to be stressed since getting the gym membership, but I sure am less stressed.

Deadlifts in particular, but really any full body lifts have always been a mental state degauss button for me. Doesn't matter how many problems you have before you walk up to that bar, you'll barely remember them when you're done.

Note: deadlifts do not "annihilate" joints. Resistance training strengthens and improves joints. Repetitive impact behavior like running on concrete does annihilate joints though.

This is from a context of "4 plates used to be pretty easy, then I took several years off lifting". I know no faster way to get injured in the gym than to try to grind a new 1RM after a lengthy break.

Okay great, but that has nothing to do with your joints, unless you meant vertebral joints, but that is not the common parlance. You might injure a muscle belly.

Note: running on concrete does not "annihilate" joints either.

https://www.uhhospitals.org/blog/articles/2023/08/running-do...

https://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/will-continuing-to...

Not saying "cardiorespiratory fitness" and "heart rate" are 1:1, because they're certainly not, but beta blockers are a known treatment for certain kinds of anxiety. I can attest that taking low-dose propranolol twice a day (without pulling any other levers related to lifestyle, stress, etc.) has helped me mellow the fuck out, which I sorely needed lol. So I would wager that cardio fitness is itself correlated with anxiety and anger, although in practice it's tangled up with many other factors.

In addition to baseline heart rate, there's also some interesting stuff related to anxiety and heart rate variability. My understanding is that certain types of breathing exercises improve HRV in the short term, which is good for calming down if you're riled up, but people with good cardio health have a better baseline HRV in the first place. (Also, this has always been unintuitive to me, but higher variability is better for anxiety, not lower variability.)

I've been doing my own personal research on HRV and getting to the bottom of it.

The literature is bewildering because of course there are many ways to measure it. If you measure it over the course of the day it is influenced by things like the activities you do. Of course your HRV is going to be higher if you alternate intense activity that raises your heart rate with rest and since activity is so important in it I don't think it is fair to look at a whole day trace.

I think the most important phenomenon is

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

which are associated with the metric RMSSD as described here:

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

This is called "SD1" in my app

https://gen5.info/demo/biofeedback/

You can use that app to increase the amplitude of your Mayer wave, what you do is breathe in when you see the wave going down and breathe in when you see the wave going up. It is a little tricky if your Mayer waves are initially weak and you might feel light-headed and think "I can't breathe" but once it settles in it is a very strong effect.

I have read a number of patents for HRV biofeedback and they all involve much more complex things that you might think would work if you hadn't tried it but that I don't believe would work having tried it.

Funny I have been taking Nebivolol, another beta blocker, and found that it drastically lowers HRV-inferred stress as measured by my Garmin watch -- I can't really say how it affects my app because I wrote it after I started on the drug.

For those of us who don't have a Polar strap, can you explain at a high level how your app works? Based on what the page says, seems like something about using R-R interval to estimate where you area on the Meyer wave cycle?

I have a different heart rate monitor (Amazfit smartwatch, mine has their latest sensor that matches the higher end Garmin watches for accuracy, it can be used as a Bluetooth device or you can develop software to run on it directly). What topics/keywords should I look into if I want to develop the equivalent application for my hardware?

It works with many standard BTLE HR monitors, it might work with yours.

Sample size of 1 but after a stressful day it's very hard to come back with the same mindset once you have left for even a quick run.

My final year of college I lived 2 miles off campus and would daily bicycle to school. In previous years I would commute via car as I lived too far to make the trip conveniently. I perceived greater emotional well-being during the 1 year period of moderate daily exercise. My grades also improved dramatically and I was more resilient during periods of sleep deprivation or intense study. As an adult with a family it has been more difficult to establish a pattern of daily physical activity. Going to the gym is very boring for me.

> Going to the gym is very boring for me.

Try group exercise studios, if you have one available. The classes are usually one hour. It makes planning very easy. Same time, every week. All you need to do is to show up.

Thank you for the suggestion

You could try signing up for a race. 5k’s are a good intro if you’re new to running. Plus it’s a nearly free hobby.

Thank you for the suggestion

Exercise may relieve depression as effectively as antidepressants - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46541672 - January 2026

Exercise twice as effective as anti-depressants - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39396047 - February 2024

Running from the Pain (2018) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27306725 - May 2021

Running from the Pain - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16573009 - March 2018

I live ruraly, am reitivly poor, assets, but high outside bills,my work is laborious, and other aspects of k|ping a house going are also labour intensive.Never been in a jym.The harder I work, the stronger I get, and as my financial situation has gotten tighter and tighter, I am forced to act pragmaticly, which is to say a distilation of efficiency. The most intetesting thing is that people are responding to whatever newer matter of fact way I am comunicating and acting with there own version and seem to enjoy working with somone pushing there own personal edge, I know I do.

Linguistics question: the title says “[…] is associated with lower anger and anxiety” I read it as _people who have lower anger, and people who have anxiety_ Am I broken? (I am a native English speaker but that doesn’t mean that I speak English correctly)

The title is grammatically standard to the title of other scientific studies of this nature and communicates the intent succinctly to those who know they are looking at a psychology study.

A descriptive rewording for general understanding could be something like "We measured an association with lower anger and anxiety and higher emotional resilience in individuals with higher cardiorespiratory fitness rates."

I wonder if there is some underlying lizard-brain thing going on here.

If you "know" you are physically unfit you are quick to anger and aggression because you potentially need to act like that to not need to rely on physical fitness if it came to needing it? I.e. you need to deter others through your aggression rather than relying on fitness if it came to a fight?

Or alternatively the other perspective if you "know" you are fit you can keep the stress hormones low safe in the knowledge that if it comes to it you've got the fitness to handle a fight?

...Or perhaps none of that!

Interesting.

Or even more lizard brain: if you have more cardio capacity/fitness, your body actually FEELS better, so you feel better emotionally and cognitively.

If you have lower capacity, your body feels bad and this is reflected in your emotional and cognitive state.

I've had the same idea. Especially regarding anxiety. You start getting anxious and scared of everything, because your brain knows that your body is out of shape and incapable of dealing with stuff if anything happens. If you can't deal with any problems, then you must constantly be on lookout for them so that you can avoid them.

I am 100% certain my resilience to stress and anxiety is directly tied to my cardiovascular health. I'm prone to a heart-racing, hot-eared flywheel of anxiety. When I've been running a lot I can FEEL the vagal tone/HRV fitness that gives me an physical off ramp for the mental space to take a fucking chill pill.

read¹ the book "Spark" and a school instituted a daily exercise program. Kids were happier, fought less and got better grades.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316113514

[1] well, listened to the audiobook while walking

I loved the gym and it did help my psyche. That is very clear to me. But now I don't go to the gym anymore, because I have a very stubborn radial tunnel syndrome in my right arm and my knee osteoarthritis is worse than ever. Of course both of those things make me angry and anxious. While I am absolutely positive that exercise helps your psyche, I would not be surprised if the majority of this correlation is actually from a common cause (it might also be stress in general - i.e. no time for exercise), lack of financial resources or just a bad place of living, etc.

Fitness or the exercise to get there?

You get the fitness from the exercise. They didn't subject people to exercise, they surveyed them on what they already do and found a correlation between exercise and emotional resilience.

Cardio is unpleasant and stressful, which is why most people don't do it. Someone willing to do something that is not fun, on a regular basis, is going to have stronger mental status that someone who doesn't try at all.

As Calvin's dad says, misery builds character.

It's only unpleasant and stressful when you're unfit. I cycle 4-6 hours a week and it's wayyy more pleasant than sitting around at home

Agreed, cardio is actually generally enjoyable, hence the massive popularity of run clubs and marathons. It is unpleasant for the first couple months of someone 20 years sedentary and overweight going into 9/10 effort runs though (when they should jog)

> the massive popularity of run clubs and marathons

A few hundreds/thousands members in cities of millions doesn't equate massive popularity. Doing cardio is unpleasant to most people, I don't understand why it's so important to cardio enthusiasts to frame them as being liars or unaware? That's not convincing anyone and your energy would be better spent trying to find other ways to entice people.

How many yearly events are drawing tens of thousands in cities? About 15% of the US runs regularly per stats, cardio is even more because cycling is also huge.

Of course cardio is unpleasant to most people, 73% of the US is overweight or obese. I'm saying for healthy individuals with a small modicum of fitness (like their bodies were evolutionarily designed to do, we are the animal kingdom's top long distance runner after all), cardio is generally enjoyable.

People who enjoy exercise are in the minority. Literally doing anything I find interesting would be preferable to exercise, I exercise because I have to, not because it is enjoyable in any way.

I think it depends. People should branch out more and try different sports. I'm sure there's something most people could find that just happens to be exercise

I was like that when I was into lifting weights. I wanted the results, but found the process incredibly grueling

With running/cycling I like the activity, not that interested in the results

It's the "forcing yourself to do something unpleasant" part which improves mental state, not the fitness itself. I suspect that people who find exercise enjoyable, or are forced to do it, don't get the same benefits.

This article is basically just the marshmallow test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...

And 4-6 hours a week would be a low week for me =)

I used to feel this way until I discovered cycling, I started running because I don't want to bike in NYC winter weather. Highly recommending trying cycling since you get to make it as hard as you want and it builds amazing cardio

Once you get over the hump and develop a certain amount of cardiovascular fitness, it stops being unpleasant and stressful.

The real problem is that most people don't feel like this is true. It really takes a solid 6ish months of earnest effort (AT LEAST 3x per week, probably more) to develop cardiovascular fitness. For some people, it'll take even longer.

I run an average of 6 days per week for the past 10+ years. At this point running is just about the easiest thing I do, it doesn't take any mental fortitude at all to do it. It wasn't always that way though, I used to dread it.

> It really takes a solid 6ish months of earnest effort (AT LEAST 3x per week, probably more) to develop cardiovascular fitness. For some people, it'll take even longer

I don't think people need to suffer through 6 months just to start enjoy running. Yes when beginning running you suck (and also prone to injury); you basically have no zone 1-2 since your'e so out of shape, your zone 2 is basically a fast walk. So for newbies who train like that all runs become a zone 3 or even 4 - when you're totally new to running. No surprise they many time a) hate it b) get injured

I advise newbies to walk and run and try to keep HR very very controllable until you build up fitness. That should be both more fun and also more sustainable injury wise.

> Cardio is unpleasant and stressful

It can be, especially when you're only getting started and completely out of shape (I advise mostly walking and a bit of running if thats the case). But it can also be a beautiful, relaxing, meditative and totally addictive thing - which is why tens or hundreds of millions around the world do it. That feeling of unlpeasant stress means you probably went to hard; decrease the intensity. Walk if u have to, then run a bit, then walk some more. I agree that when you're starting out - feeling like you're suffocating / out of air is not a great feeling. There's really no reason to train like that.

Zone 2 cardio is pretty doggone easy. I notice that if I hit 50 minutes of zone 2, then it is a huuuge stress reliever for me.

when you’re fit and make it a habit cardio is pleasant and calming. and it doesn’t take long to get there unless you have health complications

sample size and methods do not inspire confidence about such broad generalizations

"Exercise gives you endorphins. Endorphins make you happy. Happy people just don't shoot their husbands. They just don't."

well, now the obesity crisis explains the state of online discourse too

Would a stressed out Amazon/Uber eats delivery person who is very fit from working 10 hours a day, but with barely enough money to feed their family going to be less angry/anxious than a rich person lounging at his villa with zero worries? This is looking at one variable which isn't very useful.

working != working out

if you don't believe me, take one look at a construction site and the workers on it.

But the article mentions cardiorespiratory fitness, not working out vs working.

My point is that physical labor won't grant you cardio fitness.

Diet is the main driver of obesity, not exercise. These folks are often in great shape under a layer of fat.

More apropos, have you ever met an anxious construction worker? I haven’t.

I renovated my house over the course of two years, so I've had a lot of close contact with tradespeople. Carpenters, demo, electricians, hvac, plasterers... the young guys are ok and buckstrong. By the time they're in their 40s, you can tell the work is rough on them.

Having muscle is only one dimension of fitness. You're entirely neglecting cardiovascular health, which is a better predictor of longevity.

> This is looking at one variable which isn't very useful.

It’s a core part of the scientific process: “All else being equal…”

It's not though unless they cloned the humans and put them in a lab for 50 years.

That's exactly why you control for other variables

Reply on news.ycombinator.com