Healthy but sedentary people show early decline in cellular energy production
news.cuanschutz.edu
news.cuanschutz.edu
The problem with this is that people are sedentary or active for a variety of health-related reasons that are not captured in any screen (esp. the crude one used in this study). As a predictive study, this is fine, sedentarism predicts a lot of bad things. But it doesn't, on its own, suggest that becoming active is helpful. See also grip strength and mortality.
But there's an enormous volume of evidence that exercise, especially intense exercise, is better for health than any other intervention, including more sleep, quality of diet, pills+supplements (except those that treat an active illness/disease of course).
There's even compelling data showing that moderate drinkers who exercise live longer than non-drinkers who don't exercise. Even given that Alcohol is a powerful carcinogen.
The only thing proven more effective than exercise is weight loss really, if starting from high bodyfat levels.
(Anything above ~15% bodyfat in men seems to have negative implications for lifespan, and ~30% for women)
That sounds like a study that is pretty tough to control for, especially long term and at scale.
You'd need to find subjects that are provably capable of sustaining intense exercise as a habit if they wanted to but never did, and won't either for the years you'll be following them.
That won't work in the reverse, as people can be consciously or not self adjusting based on the health conditions you're trying to check.
PS: I'm remembering a friend who never liked running, but tried pretty hard after being pestered by their doctor and family, to discover that their knees are just not good and their whole lineage hated running for a reason. Intense exercise can be anything else, but people won't know their real health limitations until they actually do it for a while.
That intense exercise is good, and even very good for you, is proven as far as reasonably possible given that we can't run deterministically controlled experiments.
More evidence may come out that adds nuance, but the effect size is so large that it becomes obvious in the data just from observation.
You can cycle or stationary bike if you have bad knees. There are plenty of exercises that are intense but easy on the joints.
Looking around, the simplest wording I get:
> the intensity must be high. This means that you need to really exert yourself so you get out of breath. [https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2026/05/exercise-a-very-lit...]
So if climbing the stairs gets someone out of breath it's intense (and I also see how getting to your limits, whatever they are, can help)
More and more studies have been indicating that even just a few minutes of intense exercise can outperform long/slow LISS type cardios.
E.g. 5m all out effort is probably better, or at least equivalent, for health than a 30m moderate effort.
The average person can likely hit the 80/20 benefit threshold at less than 30m/week.
For best results run fast and far. During my personal best marathon (3h 15min) my heart rate averaged in the 170 range
>>E.g. 5m all out effort is probably better, or at least equivalent, for health than a 30m moderate effort.
This is very unlikely to be true. Studies I've seen usually compare low intensity to HIIT and then measure things like VO2max improvements instead of direct health outcomes. VO2max is a good health indicator for general population and it's maximized short term by HIIT style of training but it's not enough to conclude short term improvements in VO2max imply long term health.
>>The average person can likely hit the 80/20 benefit threshold at less than 30m/week.
I very much doubt it. Usual number mentioned is at least 5 hours but in general the more the better.
Recent studies have shown compelling evidence that LISS promotes arterial plaque buildup, while HIIT does not have this effect and has even been shown to reverse it if other parameters are in order.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.0...
"""
Physical activity and exercise training are effective strategies for reducing the risk of cardiovascular events, but multiple studies have reported an increased prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis, usually measured as coronary artery calcification, among athletes who are middle-aged and older. Our review of the medical literature demonstrates that the prevalence of coronary artery calcification and atherosclerotic plaques, which are strong predictors for future cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, was higher in athletes compared with controls, and was higher in the most active athletes compared with less active athletes.
"""
While the health benefits of LISS seem to outweigh this factor, the new evidence that comes out in various studies continually nudge health impact of HIIT over LISS.
I find it difficult to recommend a form of cardio that 1) promotes arterial plaque over one that reverses it, and 2) seems to produce equivalent or worse biomarkers along almost every axis per unit of time spent.
(Not just V02 max)
What that is depends somewhat on who you ask but to give an example.
Take a normal exercise like cycling for 45 minutes.
If you do HIIT you cycle as fast as you can for 10-15 seconds (or until properly worn out) then rest long enough to be able to do it again. You only end up working out for less than one minute or just half a minute in total but you get similar if not better results than the 45 minutes workout.
So yes, running up the stairs as fast as you can until you feel like you are going to die would be high intensity. Take the elevator back down or you might die for real.
You will improve things like muscle buffer capacity and maybe VO2max (although for that longer intervals are much better) but those are not the most important things for metabolic health or health in general.
Recommending sprinting to untrained people is just a very bad idea. Fatigue and injury risk is higher. Benefits when it comes to metabolic health are lower.
It's important for exercise to be in heavy domain. Maybe it's a good idea to be in severe domain for a while (VO2max training) but typical HIIT hacks maximize pain/injury risk/recovery time while giving less benefits (unless you compare it to something silly like strolling for 30 minutes).
With modern 24/7 health tracking we’ll have tons of data in the next 50-100 years. Problem is we need that much time to see the net effect and will probably be too late for most of you reading this.
I wouldn’t wait for the results though. Best to start moving now assuming it’s probably good for you.
Can you link evidence for this? I stay at 12% year around as male (confirmed via DEXA)
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.7326/M15-1181
Though to be clear, there aren't a ton of studies that look at bodyfat percentage. Most use BMI and similar measures.
Likely overall fat levels matter more than %, I'd guess.
E.g. I'd presume being 15% at very muscular levels is less healthy than 15% at moderate.
(Because absolute fat mass plus visceral fat would be higher)
Lowest risk is around 18-20 BMI in this recent study, which controls for many confounding factors not controlled for in other studies.
Other studies show slightly higher troughs, but often don't sufficiently control for correlation of weight with health in elderly people.
From this study: Estimates of mortality differences by body mass index (BMI) are likely biased by: (1) confounding bias from heterogeneity in body shape; (2) positive survival bias in high-BMI samples due to recent weight gain; and (3) negative survival bias in low-BMI samples due to recent weight loss
And if you follow the longevity/health space and studies as they come out, it's becoming pretty clear that bodyfat is objectively bad for you above a pretty low baseline.
It shows up in insulin resistance, heart markers, inflammation, and once you control for confounding factors sufficiently, mortality.
You likely won't become diabetic with a bodyfat of 25%, but all your health markers will be worse than somebody at 15%. This is measurable and clear.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/bmi-we-know-its-flawed-...
And the OP implicitly referenced these studies in his claim that being overweight could be healthier (which comes up in BMI studies of elderly people that don't sufficiently control for confounding factors)
Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.
You are quoting poorly done and controlled BMI studies to dispute this, studies which look primarily at elderly people where weight is highly correlated with health to begin with and is not properly controlled for along every axis.
I'm not here to litigate it or convince you though.
I understand that the idea that there are well-controlled massive studies with enough power to detect differences from weight alone is appealing, but they simply aren't there -- which should tell you that even if the effect exists, it's not strong enough that it should be your primary motivation to lose weight. There are already plenty of reasons to lose weight that don't require lying to people about having a BMI > 20 shortening your lifespan.
Source? I haven't been able to find info on this. I get resuls on nocturnal tachycardia and such. Nothing on elevating a sleeping person's heart rate and observing the result, though.
If you slowly condition yourself I think you can exchange sleep quality for increased heart rate.
But I suspect the heart needs rest too and you will die.
An isometric hold would be better I think. You don't get any vo2max improvement but it does improve cardiovascular health.
Unfortunately, if you don’t lift heavy (or if you use electrical stimulation that’s mild enough to sleep) then you’re not going to put your muscles into hypertrophy, so you won’t gain muscle mass either.
I haven't been able to find much in the way of research on the tolerability of EMS during sleep. I would be surprised if the idea is actually feasible. It just seems like it would be such a big win if it was.
Personally, I frequently toss and turn and breath heavily, and wake up with a high heart rate. But then, my sleep quality is terrible and when I got a sleep study the sleep phase diagram looked like a seismograph reading during a 4 hour long earthquake, so...
1: https://theconversation.com/exercise-extends-life-even-witho... (Maybe not a great source but I think there is a wealth of evidence for this)
Lifting weights also increases bone mass. As you get older, osteoporosis becomes more and more of a concern. You fall one day, and the less bone mass you have built up, the more likely it is that you will lose mobility. There is a strong link between reduced mobility and cognitive decline and also a cascade of other health problems. Old person + hip fracture = significantly increased mortality, and the way to prevent this is by building up bone mass while you still can.
For me, after physical activity sleeping is much easier but if i over do it cortisol wil make it worse. (I once created an exercise formula that kept me awake long enough I started hallucinating) Spinach does miracles for me, the magnesium folate and flavonoids lower cortisol. Popeye was apparently on to something.
YMMV
First, learn to sleep on your back
Second, attach the blanket to the bottom of the bed and learn to sleep with your knees up. Use the blanket to help.
Third, put some books under the legs (on the head end)
Keep adding books until you almost slide down, get used to it and add more books.
Eventually you wake up feeling like you did a proper leg day.
Keep at it and go for isometric nucleus overload. Every 6 weeks remove half the books for 2 weeks.
You will grow enormous legs and they will stay that way.
I suppose you could tie rubber bands to your arms in stead of the books but I haven't tried that. I'm sure it will make for a memorable period of your life. ha-ha
150 minutes a week is about than 22 minutes a day. Like 11 minutes twice a day. This looks like a really low effort to rid oneself of the risk of early decline.
If I drive, it takes me 15 minutes (Toronto traffic is horrible). So doesn’t even gain me much in terms of time.
Just sad that temperatures here drop so low I don’t want to walk for half the year lol.
As you might guess, their outcomes improved greatly.
I think people get this image in their head that someone who doesn't exercise ever is this comically fat unemployed person when in reality it's the average office worker who isn't fitness minded. A good chunk of HN users wouldn't be getting 15 minutes of exercise a day.
The environment and culture needs to be structured such that people get the exercise they need "naturally". The vast majority aren't going to go out of their way for it.
That would be impossible in a suburban setting; at best, one of these destinations would be within the theoretical waking distance, but without the walkways.
The original reason for low population density was agricultural work, which - even in the early days of mechanisation - was plenty physical.
Living in exurbia to work and consume like a city dweller is a new kind of stupid.
Not necessarily true. The "village center" idea Jim Rouse used in his design of Columbia, MD could be used to solve the problem.
All of these things are within walking distance if you live in Columbia's village of Wilde Lake (and, of course, your health insurance covers the primary care physicians in walking distance).
I'm guessing you're thinking of typical "stroad" suburbs, but alternatives are possible and do exist.
Unfortunately, the suburb has to be the product of planning like Columbia. Typical "emergent" suburbs turn into unwalkable ones.
If you want public health outcomes, actual scale, you get much better outcomes by not having that regulatory system at all.
In fact, if you really stop zoning, there's a decent chance companies will ASK to operate transit for you, because those population densities and no free car competition can make it profitable. This happens in many cities!
Mixed use development happens if you let it happen. Banks and developers like money, and mixed use makes way more money, so they want to build it. Sometimes they fuck up and don't, and those land owners pay the price and retrofit. And that's fine. Again, just let them.
In high engagement Western societies, where people get involved in politics and urban planning, "design" universally leads to car subsidies and shitty outcomes. The market does a way better job.
You need considerable govt intervention, just aimed properly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development
Try this: go to your favorite frontier LLM (I like Gemini pro - free in aistudio), paste this entire exchange we're having, and ask it to carefully analyze it and assess who seems more correct. It's a long story.
It also doesn't matter. Which sounds weird, but it's true. If you just let people build density without transit, the market will almost always build it in convenient places (a bank won't underwrite if they don't think it'll be successful), the people who move into it will either be happy with walking or they'll organize.
I've done a lot of such organization, if you're curious. I spearheaded Seattle's successful 2016 ballot measure for $50 billion in additional rail transit, much of which is now under construction. It'll take more ballot measures, but we're getting there: https://seattletransitblog.com/2011/11/23/lets-build-a-seatt... And along the way, we had to save bus service, so I forced the city to do that too: https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2014/04/friend...
I think the big reason gridlock and pollution happen in a lot of other countries is more about lack of traffic laws, and lack of pollution controls. In Seattle we're selling a lot of electric vehicles. Maybe we get some gridlock, but that reduces road deaths. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Because we are willing to shift road space to bicycle infrastructure, we will end up with bicycling getting a higher share of trips if cars slow down. And then we will have a healthier population as well!
Human populations naturally gravitate towards walking, and it's pretty much active sabotage of the outside environment that has broken this.
The hard part is "just". If you have mechanisms that allow neighbors to have an opinion at all, they will organize around it, they will stop growth, and you will eventually get San Francisco and New York restrictions anywhere that has high demand.
Exception is a morning plank to wake up my core, and sometimes forward bends with a weight. I don't like to do it, but I do feel better afterwards (like with cold showers), so I do it. Harder to do with longer exercise routines, which is why I addressed the cause of my unease rather than slapped on plasters.
Sedentary (SED, n = 9): No regular exercise or elevated heart rate beyond daily tasks. Active (AC, n = 10): ≥150 min/week aerobic exercise for ≥6 months.
do you think mitochondria notice the difference? I don't.
If I cut my caloric intake, I drop weight like nobody's business, and that's all thanks to my mitochondria at their place in the chain. It's the same thing my mitochondria are doing when I overeat and put on weight.
That is even with your unwarranted assumption that all energy use is the same and doesn't cause different adaptations. This kind of simplicity is just not happening in biology.
Source: have spent years at a stretch in pretty great shape. I definitely hated a good amount of what I had to do to achieve and maintain that. Disliked the activity, or simply would rather have been doing something else. But, lots of other stuff (including pretty much all other physical activity) is way more fun if you're at least somewhat in-shape.
leave it to a forum mostly populated with software developers to have the most hyperbolic takes.
That's better than what i'm doing, hunched over my desk with the metabolic rate of a sleeping lemur, but...it's a slow stroll.