Exercise - how much is beneficial?

miss no stars

I know the consensus seems to be that you should be active and I've heard numbers between an hour 3 times a week and half an hour every day and an hour every day of exercise that gets your heart beating fast.

I'm just wondering though, is there a limit before you start reducing your lifespan? I ask because I recently saw an old acquaintance on the TV. Last saw him ten years ago and he had a very very active lifestyle. Hugely into river and sea swimming and triathlons and the like. Back then he would have been late thirties and looked FANTASTIC. Picture of health. Now he just looks really, really worn out. I mean, he might still be very fit but he looks awful. Drained and hollowed looking (late 40s now).

Does a huge amount of exercise take it's toll on the body?

RobFowl

You need to do at least 2 and a half hours a week to get any benefit. Research in Switzerland and Canada showed 30 mins 5 times a week or 15 mins 10 times a week are the minimum needed to improve health/lifespan.

ZYX

RobFowl wrote: »

You need to do at least 2 and a half hours a week to get any benefit. Research in Switzerland and Canada showed 30 mins 5 times a week or 15 mins 10 times a week are the minimum needed to improve health/lifespan.

Not true. Any exercise is beneficial, even if it is only getting off your arse to change TV rather than use remote control. Any exercise will help reduce weight, decrease risk of diabetes and help with blood pressure. Walking 2 miles 3 times (about 1 and a 1/2 hours) a week will significantly reduce blood pressure.

RobFowl

ZYX wrote: »

Not true. Any exercise is beneficial, even if it is only getting off your arse to change TV rather than use remote control. Any exercise will help reduce weight, decrease risk of diabetes and help with blood pressure. Walking 2 miles 3 times (about 1 and a 1/2 hours) a week will significantly reduce blood pressure.

Sorry to say so but not true the benefits only kick in after at least 2 1/2 hours a week.
Will get the full references and post them later

In the meantime here's one
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20043077757

ZYX

RobFowl wrote: »

Sorry to say so but not true the benefits only kick in after at least 2 1/2 hours a week.
Will get the full references and post them later

In the meantime here's one
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20043077757

But you are saying that less than 2 and1/2 hours a week has no benefit. Your link does not show that. Getting up to change TV combined with using stairs instead of lift, parking car at point in carpark furthest from shop door rather than nearest and other such minor actions will easily use up 100kcal a day. With no other changes to lifestyle that means person will loose 10lbs after 1 year. There are thousands of studies to show loosing this amount of weight significantly improves health.

RobFowl

ZYX wrote: »

But you are saying that less than 2 and1/2 hours a week has no benefit.

I will post the full research when I get home !
The evidence showed the benefits in terms of reduction of heart disease and diabetes (and reduction in over all mortality) only occur with a minimum of 30 mins 5 times a week.

RobFowl

Here's the AHA review with all the evidence quoted
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.185649

ZYX

RobFowl wrote: »

Here's the AHA review with all the evidence quoted
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/reprint/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.185649

I am sorry RobFowl, but not only does the article clearly state 3x20 mins of strenous exercise is enough, nowhere can I find where it says less than 2 and a half hours has no benefit.

Wibbs

miss no stars wrote: »

I ask because I recently saw an old acquaintance on the TV. Last saw him ten years ago and he had a very very active lifestyle. Hugely into river and sea swimming and triathlons and the like. Back then he would have been late thirties and looked FANTASTIC. Picture of health. Now he just looks really, really worn out. I mean, he might still be very fit but he looks awful. Drained and hollowed looking (late 40s now).

Does a huge amount of exercise take it's toll on the body?

I know a few people like that. I'd reckon it's an extreme of anything that is bad(though as extremes go exercise is a good one). I seem to remember reading that high level athletes, especially long distance types while they are healthier, live shorter lives. At that level the immune system starts to get weaker AFAIR. I would think that high impact stuff like running is gonna bugger the joints too, though that's just a feeling and probably very wrong.

Really heavy duty exercise seems to be bad. Read that Ranulph Fiennes book. Now there is a supremely fit endurance type. Mad as cut snake too. In a good way.:) Nearly died of a massive coronary. A few have reckoned it was down to his endurance records. Course then in his recovery stages he runs 7 marathons in 7 days. Mad as a hatter. The worlds a better place for nutters like that.

All the other stuff I have read agrees with RobFowl's posts. You need to get to a point where you are working the CV system to get the benefits.

From what I've read on longevity, low calorie, high nutrient diets with RobFowl's level exercise are the way to go. Throw in weight bearing exercise as well.

Though if the long term research is anything to go by calorie restriction alone is the only way to actively increase longevity, by a large degree, in every animal thus far studied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Effects_on_humans
Bloody hard to do though and there are negative side effects if not done very carefully.

I have noticed that every man or woman I've known that has lived a long time (90's) are not big eaters. Some were even smokers who enjoyed a drink, but none were big eaters. All were active though. Big walkers.

RobFowl

ZYX wrote: »

I am sorry RobFowl, but not only does the article clearly state 3x20 mins of strenous exercise is enough, nowhere can I find where it says less than 2 and a half hours has no benefit.

"Primary Recommendation—To promote and maintain health, all healthy adults aged 18 to 65 yr need moderate-intensity aerobic
(endurance) physical activity for a minimum of 30 min on five days each week or vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity for
a minimum of 20 min on three days each week."
On page 2 !!!
3x20 mins vigorous not strenuous exercise "Vigorous-intensity activity is exemplified by jogging, and causes rapid breathing and
a substantial increase in heart rate." is an alternative but not really the same as getting off you arse to change channels on the TV !!!!!

Wibbs

ZYX wrote: »

I am sorry RobFowl, but not only does the article clearly state 3x20 mins of strenous exercise is enough, nowhere can I find where it says less than 2 and a half hours has no benefit.

Of course it will have some benefit. Much the same way that a 60 a day smoker is going to get some benefit from reducing their intake to 10 a day. It's still far better if they stop completely though. I thought we were talking about optimum levels here. In which case RobFowl's links would show that exercise that raises the heart rate to a particuar level consistently is the best. Doing more will help, but may be a case of diminishing returns. Then again everyone is different and fitness is a subjective thing. A powerlifter is "fitter" for lifting heavy weights than a marathon runner. I would say if longevity and fitness into old age is concerned, RobFowl's level would be the optimum.

RobFowl

Wibbs wrote: »

Really heavy duty exercise seems to be bad.

There's a saying among pro cyclists that every tour de france ridden knocks a year off your lifespan ! There was a taskforce on sudden cardiac death a few years ago and there does seem to be a point where too much exercise increases the risk of heart attack's. It's at a fairly high level though !

ZYX

RobFowl wrote: »

"Primary Recommendation—To promote and maintain health, all healthy adults aged 18 to 65 yr need moderate-intensity aerobic
(endurance) physical activity for a minimum of 30 min on five days each week or vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity for
a minimum of 20 min on three days each week."
On page 2 !!!
3x20 mins vigorous not strenuous exercise "Vigorous-intensity activity is exemplified by jogging, and causes rapid breathing and
a substantial increase in heart rate." is an alternative but not really the same as getting off you arse to change channels on the TV !!!!!

You seem to seriously misunderstand this article. They are talking about the minimum recommended exercise level. They are not saying if you fail to do this much exercise you are getting no benefit. It is like saying that the minimum fruit & veg intake is 5 portions per day, so someone eating 4 portions is getting no benefit over someone eating none. Or the recommended cholesterol level is less than 5.0 so someone whose cholesterol is 5.1 is no better than someone whose cholesterol is 15.1 or recommended smoking level is zero so someone smoking 1 cigarette a week is at the same risk as someone smoking 60/day.
Any and all exercise is of benefit no matter how little. Obviously more will benefit more.
By the way you are also totally ignoring all other causes of mortality and morbidity that benefit from exercise and consequential weight loss.

RobFowl

ZYX wrote: »

You seem to seriously misunderstand this article. They are talking about the minimum recommended exercise level. They are not saying if you fail to do this much exercise you are getting no benefit. It is like saying that the minimum fruit & veg intake is 5 portions per day, so someone eating 4 portions is getting no benefit over someone eating none. Or the recommended cholesterol level is less than 5.0 so someone whose cholesterol is 5.1 is no better than someone whose cholesterol is 15.1 or recommended smoking level is zero so someone smoking 1 cigarette a week is at the same risk as someone smoking 60/day.
Any and all exercise is of benefit no matter how little. Obviously more will benefit more.
By the way you are also totally ignoring all other causes of mortality and morbidity that benefit from exercise and consequential weight loss.

Sorry ZYX i disagree. Risk is all relative . With cholesterol it depends on age and smoking status for example a 40 year old woman will have the same 10 year risk of fatal CVD if her cholesterol is 4 or 8 (<1%) a 45 year old male smoker whose cholesterol whose cholesterol is 4 has a 2% risk but if it is 8 this goes up to 4-9%.
This should illustrate that that there is a thresehold below which interventions have little measurable effect.
The evidence for the benifits of exercise only shows a measurable effect above the aforementioned levels. You can postulate that there is benefit at lower levels and you may be right BUT the evidence base for exercise below that level does not support you.
In terms of understanding research I suggest you read Trish Greenhalgh's book "how to read a paper" which is a recommended text on most post grad training schemes.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Read-Paper-Evidence-Based-EvidenceBased/dp/1405139765

ZYX

RobFowl wrote: »

Sorry ZYX i disagree. Risk is all relative . With cholesterol it depends on age and smoking status for example a 40 year old woman will have the same 10 year risk of fatal CVD if her cholesterol is 4 or 8 (<1%) a 45 year old male smoker whose cholesterol whose cholesterol is 4 has a 2% risk but if it is 8 this goes up to 4-9%.
This should illustrate that that there is a thresehold below which interventions have little measurable effect.
The evidence for the benifits of exercise only shows a measurable effect above the aforementioned levels. You can postulate that there is benefit at lower levels and you may be right BUT the evidence base for exercise below that level does not support you.
In terms of understanding research I suggest you read Trish Greenhalgh's book "how to read a paper" which is a recommended text on most post grad training schemes.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Read-Paper-Evidence-Based-EvidenceBased/dp/1405139765

RobFowl I find your condescending manner irritating. I assume you are an SHO (or possibly a first year reg) as this is the peak time for undeserved arrogance. Trust me I was an SHO once. However when you have done as much post graduate work as I and when you have been a post grad trainer and examiner, believe me you will know how to read a paper. You misread the paper. No big deal, I was just correcting you as I don't want you passing such misinformation onto patients. Just think about it. You are suggesting someone doing 2 hours and 29 mins gets no benefit. Someone doing 2 hours and 30mins gets a benefit. That is a plainly ridiculous suggestion.

ZYX

RobFowl wrote: »

Sorry ZYX i disagree. Risk is all relative . With cholesterol it depends on age and smoking status for example a 40 year old woman will have the same 10 year risk of fatal CVD if her cholesterol is 4 or 8 (<1%)

Just on a minor point, (and way off topic) her 10 year risk is not 1%, (you are obviously thinking of her yearly risk over next 10 years). This is based on the many CVD risk tables but remember they are only guidelines and the person infront of you may have a very different risk. So she may have a risk of 50% or more. However using the tables the average 40 year old woman would have a risk of <15% over 10 years assuming she is a non-smoker, no diabetes and no hypertension.

RobFowl

ZYX wrote: »

RobFowl I find your condescending manner irritating. I assume you are an SHO (or possibly a first year reg) as this is the peak time for undeserved arrogance. Trust me I was an SHO once. However when you have done as much post graduate work as I and when you have been a post grad trainer and examiner, believe me you will know how to read a paper. You misread the paper. No big deal, I was just correcting you as I don't want you passing such misinformation onto patients. Just think about it. You are suggesting someone doing 2 hours and 29 mins gets no benefit. Someone doing 2 hours and 30mins gets a benefit. That is a plainly ridiculous suggestion.

Sorry ZYX.
With regard to the exercise I don't believe I have mis read the evidence. Basically the minimum exercise level which benefits (in terms of cardiovascular health) is 30 mins 5 five times a week. This is because at this level of higher demonstrable positive effects have been shown, below this level they haven't , simple as that.
BTW was last an SHO in 1997 and am involved in post and under grad teaching. Have been published as well.
You are offended I am aware but I do feel that in terms of evidence based medicine what I am saying is correct and substantiated by a body of research.

RobFowl

ZYX wrote: »

Just on a minor point, (and way off topic) her 10 year risk is not 1%, (you are obviously thinking of her yearly risk over next 10 years). ver 10 years assuming she is a non-smoker, no diabetes and no hypertension.

"ten year risk of fatal CVD" as per European guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice

Wibbs

Is this not descending into pedantry and a touch of the wood for the trees just a little? Obviously some exercise will have some positive effect, but there comes a point where it will have an optimum effect. This level is the one quoted by RobFowl.

Beyond that I would assume the effect would get more marked but it would be a case of diminishing returns up to a point where excessive exercise would start to impact in a negative way(as RobFowl points out that's at a high level, though I would personally suspect it can happen at not that high level, just from very non scientific observations of some obsessive gym types I know)?

Of course by definition and necessity these are averages too. What ages are we talking about? What gender? What physical makeup of the individual? I would presume that figure would vary between an 16 stone 40 year old male and an 8 stone 20 year old female?

I seem to remember reading that the benefits only start to kick in at a particular age related heart rate being sustained for a particular time. Actually pro cyclists saw major gains in speed and endurance when heart monitors and bike computers came in for that very reason.

ZYX

Wibbs wrote: »

Is this not descending into pedantry and a touch of the wood for the trees just a little? Obviously some exercise will have some positive effect, but there comes a point where it will have an optimum effect. This level is the one quoted by RobFowl.

Thanks Wibbs. This is exactly the point I was making in reply to RobFowls original comment.

"You need to do at least 2 and a half hours a week to get any benefit"

which implies unless you are doing this much exercise you get no benefit.
But also it ignores the benificial effects of exercise on cancer prevention, weight reduction, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis etc. A patient who hears that unless you do 2 and 1/2 hours a week you are wasting your time is more likely to stop all exercise (what's the point?) than increase exercise levels to 21/2 hours. Exercise no matter how little should be encouraged.

eth0_

ZYX wrote: »

With no other changes to lifestyle that means person will loose 10lbs after 1 year. There are thousands of studies to show loosing this amount of weight significantly improves health.

It might improve your chances of not getting diabetes etc, but being THAT sedentary is leaving you open to heart problems in later years.

Surely everyone knows you need to raise your heart rate when exercising in order to get fit? Otherwise it's just not exercise.

Chunky Monkey

Wibbs wrote: »

I have noticed that every man or woman I've known that has lived a long time (90's) are not big eaters. Some were even smokers who enjoyed a drink, but none were big eaters. All were active though. Big walkers.

That's interesting, I wonder why. Did they have small appetites all their lives? I've noticed the elderly tend to have small appetites, even the sedentary, not so skinny ones.

Wibbs

Chunky Monkey wrote: »

That's interesting, I wonder why. Did they have small appetites all their lives?

Pretty much all their lives. I know the really old ones that I know the best, IE in my family(90+) would all be like that anyway. Stayed a consistent weight through their adult life. The other really old types I've met told me the same anyway. It could simply be genetic advantage. Built in longevity or a built in small appetite that leads to longevity. Who knows?

Given calorie restriction seems to increase longevity in every animal model(and some human testing quite big effects were observed), it might be possible that a lower calorie diet in general would have some effect. Though I would say there's a cut off point, kinda like the exercise. As I said though I tried it for a while and it's not easy at all and I have a tiny appetite. I did read that some researchers are homing in on the underlying mechanism(s) that calorie restriction triggers and may have an easier way to trigger it in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Why_might_CR_increase_longevity.3F

There can be serious side effects though and the animal models may not translate into the human, though positive effects(some pretty amazing) have been observed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction#Positive_effects

But it seems too extreme to me(psychologically if nothing else).

The other option could be the intermittent fasting idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_fasting Again early days regarding positive results in the human model, but an easier one to do I would imagine.

I would suspect that a lower calorie intake than is often recommended may have positive results. If you lead a very sedentary life then it's a no brainer, I would have thought. Only of course if the nutrient levels are above adequate. IE bloody good nutrient dense food. No empty calories. The populations with the longest longevity have a few constants in behaviours, but low calorie, high nutrient diets are pretty consistent. The Okinawans a good example. http://longevity.about.com/od/healthyagingandlongevity/a/okinawan_aging.htm

Though if a person was very physically active more food would need to be taken.

RobFowl

Ressurrecting an old thread here but the latest guidelines were issued yesterday
http://www.hse.ie/eng/News/Top_Story/Launch_of_the_National_Guidelines_on_Physical_Activity_for_Ireland_%E2%80%93_%E2%80%98Get_Ireland_Active%E2%80%99.shortcut.html?showDoc=1&

• Adults (18-64yrs) need at least 30 minutes a day of moderate activity on 5 days a week or 150 minutes a week.
• Older people need at least 30 minutes a day of moderate intensity activity on five days a week, or 150 minutes a week.
• Adults with disabilities should be as active as their ability allows. They should aim to meet the adult guidelines of at least 30 minutes of moderate intensity activity on 5 days a week.
• Children and young people (2-18 yrs) should be active at a moderate to vigorous level for at least 60 minutes everyday.