Re: Is Marathoning Too Much of a Good Thing for Your Heart?

[Guest guest]

Anyone running a marathon does so for entertainment purposes, right?

Certainly not for health.

How much exercise should we do and what type? Important question as

exercise affords limited protection from certain cancers, cvd,

diabetes, metabolic syndrome, at least in the " ad lib " population.

So how much?

This is what I do, and please critique if something strikes you as

unusual or necessary.

1)high-intensity weight training once per week.

2)aerobic training, 20-30 minutes, stationary bike or treadmill, five

times per week.

3)15 minutes yoga, daily.

The weight-training is to strengthen muscle and bone, neuro-muscular

efficiency.

The aerobic training to improve cardio-respiratory function, arterial

endothelial health, enlarge arterial heart lumen and collateral

circulation, and potentiate reduction in serum triglycerides.

Yoga to induce tranquility and connective tissue health.

Would very much love to see what everyone else does for formal exercise?

bill

>

> Baloney there goes my training and last planned attempt at another

> marathon. One wise sage (Dirty Harry in Magnum Force) once said, " A

> man's got to know his limitations. "

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/fashion/07Fitness.html?

> ex=1166245200 & en=e0790378c2f0eb67 & ei=5070 & emc=eta1

>

> Actually had a physical the day after my only completed marathon and

> the doctor mentioned that the blood tests showed some muscle damage.

> Always thought it was my poor sore leg muscles, but maybe it was

> actually my heart itself. Anyway that's it for me folks - sticking

> to 6 or maybe 10 miles max and trying hard not to hold more than a

> 100 lb potato sack (in each arm for at least a minute)**.

>

> a=z

>

> PS Did my cholesterol today - yikes - back to some serious CRONing.

>

> ** For any retards out there, that means the sack itself, sans

> potatoes. Sorry for the acerbity, but he author (me) is in a bad

> mood due to high cholesterol and the prospect of a dreary life with

> no more marathon training. And just when I was getting good at

> running up that d*%m hill.

>

[Guest guest]

I ran my one marathon over ten years ago for bragging rights... Still bragging, no need to run another anytime soon.  :-)IMO beyond some modest level, exercise is more a quality of life issue. The minimum needed probably varies with age, energy balance, and routine activity. There are tons of opinion on the subject but I don't even know how to factor out confounders and judge what might be optimal.JROn Dec 9, 2006, at 8:37 AM, bill4cr wrote:Anyone running a marathon does so for entertainment purposes, right?Certainly not for health.How much exercise should we do and what type? Important question asexercise affords limited protection from certain cancers, cvd,diabetes, metabolic syndrome, at least in the "ad lib" population.So how much?This is what I do, and please critique if something strikes you asunusual or necessary.1)high-intensity weight training once per week.2)aerobic training, 20-30 minutes, stationary bike or treadmill, fivetimes per week.3)15 minutes yoga, daily.The weight-training is to strengthen muscle and bone, neuro-muscularefficiency. The aerobic training to improve cardio-respiratory function, arterialendothelial health, enlarge arterial heart lumen and collateralcirculation, and potentiate reduction in serum triglycerides.Yoga to induce tranquility and connective tissue health.Would very much love to see what everyone else does for formal exercise?bill>> Baloney there goes my training and last planned attempt at another > marathon. One wise sage (Dirty Harry in Magnum Force) once said, "A > man's got to know his limitations." >

[Guest guest]

Bill posted the following:

"Anyone running a marathon does so for entertainment purposes, right?Certainly not for health.How much exercise should we do and what type? Important question asexercise affords limited protection from certain cancers, cvd,diabetes, metabolic syndrome, at least in the "ad lib" population.So how much?This is what I do, and please critique if something strikes you asunusual or necessary.1)high-intensity weight training once per week.2)aerobic training, 20-30 minutes, stationary bike or treadmill, fivetimes per week.3)15 minutes yoga, daily.The weight-training is to strengthen muscle and bone, neuro-muscularefficiency. The aerobic training to improve cardio-respiratory function, arterialendothelial health, enlarge arterial heart lumen and collateralcirculation, and potentiate reduction in serum triglycerides.Yoga to induce tranquility and connective tissue health.Would very much love to see what everyone else does for formal exercise?"

I do the following:

1) 15 minuites breathing meditation first thing in the morning

2) around 30 minutes of fast walking daily, usually split into two or more shorter walks. Perhaps to motivate not having to do aerobic training which I don't like and because I have to move around in town anyway which can be accomplished just as well by walking, I have internalized the reports which claim that fast walking is as good as aerobic exercise from a long-term health point of view. (It's just anecodotal but the hunter-gatherers I get to know in my work all do a lot of fast walking but only short, infrequent running).

3) 40 minutes of home exercises twice a week: About 25 minutes of muscle/bone strengthening of major muscle groups just by use of body weight or a rubber band and 15 minutes of back and neck/shoulder pain prevention exercises. The muscle strengthening part I have only done for a year and I'm not sure if I should take the trouble to move on to more high-intensity use of weights. Anybody who has a simple, one weight trailning exercise per major muscle group on hand is welcome to post it.

Yoga is something I know I should investigate the merits of adding to my schedule. Is connective tissue health an important issue and is yoga the thing to do for it?

Ulf

[Guest guest]

Ulf,

Would you mind posting your yoga routine? I'd appreciate this info

from anyone else who has a brief yoga workout, too.

Thanks,

Diane

--- In , " Rasmusson " <ulf.rasmusson@...>

wrote:

>

>

> This is what I do, and please critique if something strikes you as

> unusual or necessary.

>

> 1)high-intensity weight training once per week.

> 2)aerobic training, 20-30 minutes, stationary bike or treadmill, five

> times per week.

> 3)15 minutes yoga, daily.

>

> The weight-training is to strengthen muscle and bone, neuro-muscular

> efficiency.

>

> The aerobic training to improve cardio-respiratory function, arterial

> endothelial health, enlarge arterial heart lumen and collateral

> circulation, and potentiate reduction in serum triglycerides.

>

> Yoga to induce tranquility and connective tissue health.

>

> Would very much love to see what everyone else does for formal

exercise? "

>

> I do the following:

> 1) 15 minuites breathing meditation first thing in the morning

> 2) around 30 minutes of fast walking daily, usually split into two

or more shorter walks. Perhaps to motivate not having to do aerobic

training which I don't like and because I have to move around in town

anyway which can be accomplished just as well by walking, I have

internalized the reports which claim that fast walking is as good as

aerobic exercise from a long-term health point of view. (It's just

anecodotal but the hunter-gatherers I get to know in my work all do a

lot of fast walking but only short, infrequent running).

> 3) 40 minutes of home exercises twice a week: About 25 minutes of

muscle/bone strengthening of major muscle groups just by use of body

weight or a rubber band and 15 minutes of back and neck/shoulder pain

prevention exercises. The muscle strengthening part I have only done

for a year and I'm not sure if I should take the trouble to move on to

more high-intensity use of weights. Anybody who has a simple, one

weight trailning exercise per major muscle group on hand is welcome to

post it.

> Yoga is something I know I should investigate the merits of adding

to my schedule. Is connective tissue health an important issue and is

yoga the thing to do for it?

>

> Ulf

>

[Guest guest]

Diane: I use a wonderful tape (which is very convenient to fit into my schedule) called (Ali MacGraw) Yoga Mind and Body. You can get it on ebay for as little as 5 or 6 bucks new. I tried several tapes from the public library and found that one to be the best. It's also recommended as one of the best on the website " About.com " .

on 12/11/2006 1:18 PM, Diane Walter at dianepwalter@... wrote:

Ulf,

Would you mind posting your yoga routine? I'd appreciate this info

from anyone else who has a brief yoga workout, too.

Thanks,

Diane

[Guest guest]

> Would very much love to see what everyone else does

> for formal exercise?

One hour a day, 6 days a week.

10 minutes of calisthenics/stretches

20 minutes of higher intensity

30 minute brisk walk on the beach

The 20 minute high intensity alternates between 20

minutes of intervals done on either a airdyne, nordic

track, jump rope, sprints or a combo. The other day

is 20 minutes of a resitance routine using mostly

bodyweight and dumbbells.

I also use my feet and my bicycle for transportation

whenever i can.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Jeff-

A walk on the beach is also very good for one's mental health as well,

something I do every chance I get to the coast. ;-)

My routine:

Aerobic 3-4X per week, ~30min, mod.-high intensity

Weight lifting 1X week

Meditation, hopefully daily

Chasing my 2 young kids and dog, daily

Daily bike ride to work, ~20 minutes total.

I feel quite good and look quite fit, if I may say so, when I compare

myself to other 40 yr olds....

-Will

> > Would very much love to see what everyone else does

> > for formal exercise?

>

> One hour a day, 6 days a week.

>

> 10 minutes of calisthenics/stretches

> 20 minutes of higher intensity

> 30 minute brisk walk on the beach

>

> The 20 minute high intensity alternates between 20

> minutes of intervals done on either a airdyne, nordic

> track, jump rope, sprints or a combo. The other day

> is 20 minutes of a resitance routine using mostly

> bodyweight and dumbbells.

>

> I also use my feet and my bicycle for transportation

> whenever i can.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

>

Jewell, Ph.D.

Campus Mass Spectrometry Facilities

UC

cmsf.ucdavis.edu

[Guest guest]

Ummm... I had blood work done for life insurance 2 days after a really

hard workout lifting at the gym. Duhhh, my ALT & AST came back

high/extremely elevated. Insurer wanted to charge me high risk cat.

premiums. Went to my Dr. for blood work 4 days after no weight lifting

(just easy swimmming) and came back low end of normal. So, marathon

bad for the heart? Depends on your family history, risk factors,

overall health. In most cases, with low to no risk factors and smart

balanced training, marathon can be optimal to your health. Why?

Because, the average runner only completes 2 marathons per year so the

lifestyle of training for a marathon is the ultimate benefit.

Keep running!!!

>

> Baloney there goes my training and last planned attempt at another

> marathon. One wise sage (Dirty Harry in Magnum Force) once said, " A

> man's got to know his limitations. "

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/fashion/07Fitness.html?

> ex=1166245200 & en=e0790378c2f0eb67 & ei=5070 & emc=eta1

>

> Actually had a physical the day after my only completed marathon and

> the doctor mentioned that the blood tests showed some muscle damage.

> Always thought it was my poor sore leg muscles, but maybe it was

> actually my heart itself. Anyway that's it for me folks - sticking

> to 6 or maybe 10 miles max and trying hard not to hold more than a

> 100 lb potato sack (in each arm for at least a minute)**.

>

> a=z

>

> PS Did my cholesterol today - yikes - back to some serious CRONing.

>

> ** For any retards out there, that means the sack itself, sans

> potatoes. Sorry for the acerbity, but he author (me) is in a bad

> mood due to high cholesterol and the prospect of a dreary life with

> no more marathon training. And just when I was getting good at

> running up that d*%m hill.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

The problems with massive amounts of exercise and CRON are: what is

the appropriate amount of it; whether the benefits of exercise shown

to rectangularize the curve of ***ad libbers*** may only be fixing

the problems that are already fixed by CRON anyway; and the caloric

burden of doing the exercise.

CRON is, after all, caloric RESTRICTION, and massive amounts of

exercise is hardly a good way to RESTRICT calories.

That said, if you have evidence that exercise also rectangularizes

the curve of people on CRON, then PLEASE post it. We know that

exercise does not extend maximum lifespan, even of ad libbers.

And further, if you have good information about what the appropriate

amount and type of exercise is, we would all be interested to hear.

Especially if it breaks out the details by age group. Presumably 90-

year olds would not be expected to do the same amount as 20-year

olds? But when I ask that, the kind of information we are

principally interested in here is papers reporting serious studies on

the issue. Preferably from observers who do NOT have a vested

interest in marketing everything to do with exercise ( and his

associates, for example).

Exercise has been extensively discussed here. Those discussions can

be found in the archives. And I think it is fair to say that there

is by no means agreement as to what is best for people restricting

calories. Nor have any exercise studies been posted that I remember

that addressed the issue of people on CRON. If you know of some it

would be of great benefit to the group to see them.

Some people have posted 'The Exercise Myth' by Cardiologist Dr. Henry

, and the absence of exercise as a characteristic of the

centenarians in the New England Centenarian Study, as reasons to be

skeptical that large amounts of exercise, or even any exercise beyond

the essential minimum, is likely to help longevity.

But we are all open minded here ............ to the evidence.

: ^ )))

Rodney.

> >

> > Baloney there goes my training and last planned attempt at

another

> > marathon. One wise sage (Dirty Harry in Magnum Force) once

said, " A

> > man's got to know his limitations. "

> >

> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/fashion/07Fitness.html?

> > ex=1166245200 & en=e0790378c2f0eb67 & ei=5070 & emc=eta1

> >

> > Actually had a physical the day after my only completed marathon

and

> > the doctor mentioned that the blood tests showed some muscle

damage.

> > Always thought it was my poor sore leg muscles, but maybe it was

> > actually my heart itself. Anyway that's it for me folks -

sticking

> > to 6 or maybe 10 miles max and trying hard not to hold more than

a

> > 100 lb potato sack (in each arm for at least a minute)**.

> >

> > a=z

> >

> > PS Did my cholesterol today - yikes - back to some serious

CRONing.

> >

> > ** For any retards out there, that means the sack itself, sans

> > potatoes. Sorry for the acerbity, but he author (me) is in a bad

> > mood due to high cholesterol and the prospect of a dreary life

with

> > no more marathon training. And just when I was getting good at

> > running up that d*%m hill.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061009031312.htm

Source: American Physiological Society

Date: October 9, 2006

Everybody Dance: The Energy You Use Won't Shorten Your

Life

The theory that animals die when they've expended

their lifetime allotment of energy may be reaching the

end of its own life, according to a study presented at

The American Physiological Society conference,

Comparative Physiology 2006. However, the longitudinal

study leaves open a newer form of the theory -- that

antioxidants help prolong life by limiting the damage

that oxidative stress can cause to cells.

" These findings join a growing body of evidence

suggesting that lifetime energy expenditure per se

does not underlie senescence, " wrote Lobke Vaanholt,

Serge Daan, Theodore Garland Jr. and G. Henk Visser in

a summary of the study presented at Comparative

Physiology 2006: Integrating Diversity. Vaanholt, Daan

and Visser are from the University of Groningen, The Netherlands.

Garland is from the University of

California at Riverside. The conference takes place

Oct. 8-11 in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

A bit of background: One early theory, the rate of

living theory, held that every organism has a set

amount of energy to expend. Once the animal expended

that number of calories, the grim reaper was on the

doorstep. Over the years, the theory has become much

more sophisticated, but metabolic rate and aging have

remained linked, Vaanholt explained.

Decades ago, physiologists discovered that during

metabolism, oxygen (O2) can split into single oxygen

atoms, known as free radicals. These rogue oxygen

atoms can remain on their own or combine with hydrogen

atoms to form reactive oxygen species (ROS), which

wreak havoc with enzymes and proteins and adversely

affect cell function. The faster the metabolism, the

more ROS produced, the modern theory goes.

Energy expenditure not the key

In this study the researchers divided the mice into

three groups of 100 mice each. Two groups were

" runner " mice, that is, mice that loved to run on the

running wheels placed in their cages. One group of

runner mice had access to running wheels, but the

second group of runner mice did not. The third group

consisted of regular laboratory mice that had a

running wheel.

Vaanholt's team followed 60 mice from each of the

three groups throughout their natural lives, nearly

three years. They measured wheel running activity and

took periodic measurements of body mass.

They found:

Runner mice that had access to a wheel expended 25%

more energy over the course of their lives compared to

both the runner group that did not have a wheel and

the regular mice

Both groups of mice bred for running, one group with

the wheel and one without, lived about 90 days less

than the regular mice

The regular (non-runner) mice lived longest, 826 days,

compared to the runners with a wheel, 735 days and

runners without a wheel, 725 days

The rate of living theory would have predicted that

the running group that expended more energy would die

earlier than the two groups that did not, Vaanholt

said. This was not the case. There was no difference

in life span between the two runner groups, even

though one expended more energy.

In addition, the rate of living theory would have

predicted that the runner mice without the wheel and

the normal mice would live approximately the same life

span because there was no difference in energy

expenditure between the two. This was not the case.

The runner mice without the wheel died sooner.

" The shorter life span cannot, therefore, be explained

by a difference in metabolism, " Vaanholt concluded.

" There must be something else going on that causes

these animals to age and die. "

More activity = higher metabolism = more antioxidants?

A second portion of the experiment involved the

remaining 40 mice in each of the three groups. The

researchers periodically used mice from these three

groups to determine energy expenditure, body

composition and the antioxidant enzyme levels and

protein synthesis in the heart and liver tissues. The

researchers selected mice, at two months, 10 months,

18 months and 26 months for this analysis.

Since the group of runner mice that expended more

energy lived as long as the runner group that was less

active, the researchers tested whether there was a

difference in antioxidant production between the two

groups. Since metabolic rate rises with activity level

and oxidative stress rises with metabolic rate,

perhaps the runner mice that expended more energy also

produced more antioxidants, the body's defense against

oxidative stress, Vaanholt said.

However, the study found no difference in antioxidant

levels among the groups, at least in the heart and the

liver, regardless of energy expenditure. " We would

have expected additional antioxidants among the group

of mice that expended 25% more energy, but that was

not the case, " Vaanholt said.

" We can conclude that the presence of a running wheel

resulted in increased daily energy expenditure without

a change in lifespan or in antioxidant enzyme activity

in the heart and liver, " Vaanholt explained.

Further research must examine whether tissues in other

areas of the body generated additional antioxidants to

help cope with the increased oxidative stress brought

on with increased activity and metabolic rate, she

said. In addition, future studies may examine whether

other mechanisms are at work, including whether

activity level is connected to DNA repair rates.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill:

That certainly seems consistent with the evidence that exercise helps

rectangularize the curve, without hurting maximum lifespan, at least

in ad lib mice.

I am not entirely sure that I get my brain around all the rest of the

possible implications. Perhaps I will devote a little time to it on

the weekend.

Thanks.

Rodney.

>

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061009031312.htm

> Source: American Physiological Society

> Date: October 9, 2006

>

> Everybody Dance: The Energy You Use Won't Shorten Your

> Life

> The theory that animals die when they've expended

> their lifetime allotment of energy may be reaching the

> end of its own life, according to a study presented at

> The American Physiological Society conference,

> Comparative Physiology 2006. However, the longitudinal

> study leaves open a newer form of the theory -- that

> antioxidants help prolong life by limiting the damage

> that oxidative stress can cause to cells.

>

> " These findings join a growing body of evidence

> suggesting that lifetime energy expenditure per se

> does not underlie senescence, " wrote Lobke Vaanholt,

> Serge Daan, Theodore Garland Jr. and G. Henk Visser in

> a summary of the study presented at Comparative

> Physiology 2006: Integrating Diversity. Vaanholt, Daan

> and Visser are from the University of Groningen, The Netherlands.

> Garland is from the University of

> California at Riverside. The conference takes place

> Oct. 8-11 in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

>

> A bit of background: One early theory, the rate of

> living theory, held that every organism has a set

> amount of energy to expend. Once the animal expended

> that number of calories, the grim reaper was on the

> doorstep. Over the years, the theory has become much

> more sophisticated, but metabolic rate and aging have

> remained linked, Vaanholt explained.

>

> Decades ago, physiologists discovered that during

> metabolism, oxygen (O2) can split into single oxygen

> atoms, known as free radicals. These rogue oxygen

> atoms can remain on their own or combine with hydrogen

> atoms to form reactive oxygen species (ROS), which

> wreak havoc with enzymes and proteins and adversely

> affect cell function. The faster the metabolism, the

> more ROS produced, the modern theory goes.

>

> Energy expenditure not the key

>

> In this study the researchers divided the mice into

> three groups of 100 mice each. Two groups were

> " runner " mice, that is, mice that loved to run on the

> running wheels placed in their cages. One group of

> runner mice had access to running wheels, but the

> second group of runner mice did not. The third group

> consisted of regular laboratory mice that had a

> running wheel.

>

> Vaanholt's team followed 60 mice from each of the

> three groups throughout their natural lives, nearly

> three years. They measured wheel running activity and

> took periodic measurements of body mass.

>

> They found:

>

> Runner mice that had access to a wheel expended 25%

> more energy over the course of their lives compared to

> both the runner group that did not have a wheel and

> the regular mice

> Both groups of mice bred for running, one group with

> the wheel and one without, lived about 90 days less

> than the regular mice

> The regular (non-runner) mice lived longest, 826 days,

> compared to the runners with a wheel, 735 days and

> runners without a wheel, 725 days

> The rate of living theory would have predicted that

> the running group that expended more energy would die

> earlier than the two groups that did not, Vaanholt

> said. This was not the case. There was no difference

> in life span between the two runner groups, even

> though one expended more energy.

>

> In addition, the rate of living theory would have

> predicted that the runner mice without the wheel and

> the normal mice would live approximately the same life

> span because there was no difference in energy

> expenditure between the two. This was not the case.

> The runner mice without the wheel died sooner.

>

> " The shorter life span cannot, therefore, be explained

> by a difference in metabolism, " Vaanholt concluded.

> " There must be something else going on that causes

> these animals to age and die. "

>

> More activity = higher metabolism = more antioxidants?

>

> A second portion of the experiment involved the

> remaining 40 mice in each of the three groups. The

> researchers periodically used mice from these three

> groups to determine energy expenditure, body

> composition and the antioxidant enzyme levels and

> protein synthesis in the heart and liver tissues. The

> researchers selected mice, at two months, 10 months,

> 18 months and 26 months for this analysis.

>

> Since the group of runner mice that expended more

> energy lived as long as the runner group that was less

> active, the researchers tested whether there was a

> difference in antioxidant production between the two

> groups. Since metabolic rate rises with activity level

> and oxidative stress rises with metabolic rate,

> perhaps the runner mice that expended more energy also

> produced more antioxidants, the body's defense against

> oxidative stress, Vaanholt said.

>

> However, the study found no difference in antioxidant

> levels among the groups, at least in the heart and the

> liver, regardless of energy expenditure. " We would

> have expected additional antioxidants among the group

> of mice that expended 25% more energy, but that was

> not the case, " Vaanholt said.

>

> " We can conclude that the presence of a running wheel

> resulted in increased daily energy expenditure without

> a change in lifespan or in antioxidant enzyme activity

> in the heart and liver, " Vaanholt explained.

>

> Further research must examine whether tissues in other

> areas of the body generated additional antioxidants to

> help cope with the increased oxidative stress brought

> on with increased activity and metabolic rate, she

> said. In addition, future studies may examine whether

> other mechanisms are at work, including whether

> activity level is connected to DNA repair rates.

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , " Wood, CLTC " <jwood@...>

wrote:

>

> Ummm... I had blood work done for life insurance 2 days after a really

> hard workout lifting at the gym. Duhhh, my ALT & AST came back

> high/extremely elevated. Insurer wanted to charge me high risk cat.

> premiums. Went to my Dr. for blood work 4 days after no weight lifting

> (just easy swimmming) and came back low end of normal. So, marathon

> bad for the heart? Depends on your family history, risk factors,

> overall health. In most cases, with low to no risk factors and smart

> balanced training, marathon can be optimal to your health. Why?

> Because, the average runner only completes 2 marathons per year so the

> lifestyle of training for a marathon is the ultimate benefit.

Marathoning can also pinpoint hidden risk factors, even if you've done

heavy competition before this stuff can pop up without warning: it

took a friend's life over the weekend:

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/printable_article_generation.asp?

article_path=/news/06/news061211_2.htm

(of course, it also can happen when you're driving to work or sitting

in front of the TV, if you want to be statistically thorough...)

Enjoy life!

in Albuquerque

[Guest guest]

Rodney, what is the evidence suggesting that exercise is detrimental

to maximum life span? We have evidence that exercise can maintain bone

mass and muscle strength, especially in CRON'ers. Also evidence that

exercise may " hedge our bet " and provide some protection against our

dietary errors that may crop up from time to time as we make our

choices. Optimum diet is a work in progress.

So to my question: Is there any evidence that burning an additional

say, for sake of argument let's use a fairly large figure, ~300 cals

per day harms maximum life span? Burning an additional 300 cals over

sedentary would require consuming additional cals contained in about 3

large apples. Maybe I am late to this evidence, so would you mind

re-posting it or giving your reasoning?

Thank you.

bill

>

> Hi Bill:

>

> That certainly seems consistent with the evidence that exercise helps

> rectangularize the curve, without hurting maximum lifespan, at least

> in ad lib mice.

>

> I am not entirely sure that I get my brain around all the rest of the

> possible implications. Perhaps I will devote a little time to it on

> the weekend.

>

> Thanks.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hello,

Sorry case B (slowest heart rate of 50 bpm) should be 35% increase

and case A (60 bpm) should be at 13.7% increase. Do I believe these

results? No way, because the set number of heartbeats per lifetime

seems extremely unlikely. I do however enjoy the slow 50 bpm heart

rate (good for bragging purposes) and there might be an element of

truth to the idea so I'll probably run less often for longer

distance. Besides, it saves overall time.

a=z

> > >

> > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061009031312.htm

> > > Source: American Physiological Society

> > > Date: October 9, 2006

> > >

> > > Everybody Dance: The Energy You Use Won't Shorten Your

> > > Life

> > [snip]

> >

> > There was a myth bandied about when I started running about how

> > exercise could shorten your life because " you only have X number

of

> > heartbeats in your lifetime... " .

> >

> > I think it took me all of 5 minutes to prove that IF true,

exercise

> > would lengthen your life because the increased heart rate during

> your

> > workout is more than compensated for by the decrease in resting

> heart

> > rate during the rest of the day.

> >

> > Sitting comfortably at 42 BPM,

> >

> > in Albuquerque

> >

>

> Hello,

>

> That's an interesting idea about the set number of heartbeats per

> lifetime allocated to an individual (probably related to the

Hayflick

> limit and telomere shortening no doubt.) And this group has been

> discussing optimal exercise routines so I've done a rough

calculation

> using myself as the test subject since I pretty well know my own

> heartbeat statistics and determined that,

>

> Case A

> run 6 days a week for 30 minutes - avg resting heart rate of 60 bpm

>

> Case B

> run 3 days a week for 60 minutes - avg resting heart rate of 50 bpm

>

> Case C

> coach potato (no running) - avg resting heart rate of 70 bpm

>

> So summing up the weekly steady state bpm for cases A B and C yield,

>

> Case C - nominal lifespan

>

> Case B - 13.7% increase in lifespan

>

> Case A - 35 % increase in lifespan

>

> Actually would have to estimate my entire life's

exercise/running/bpm

> history but anyway this calc does show something. So it seems I

get

> more bang for my buck by running half as many times but for twice

as

> long.

>

> a=z

>

[Guest guest]

Just to point out my HR is about 42 - 45 at rest also and I believe not due to walking.

I need another criterion.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Is Marathoning Too Much of a Good Thing for Your Heart?

I think it took me all of 5 minutes to prove that IF true, exercise would lengthen your life because the increased heartrate during your workout is more than compensated for by the decrease in resting heart rate during the rest of the day.Sitting comfortably at 42 BPM,in Albuquerque__

..

[Guest guest]

My grandfather was studied in the New England Centenarian study. He

lived to 104. If he had been asked if he ever exercised, he would

have said no. But he worked his entire adult life as a hard manual

laborer, swinging a pick and shovel 8 to 12 hours a day. And he

usually had to walk to and from the work site, sometimes up to 12

miles each way. So despite never " exercising " he undoubtedly burned

as many calories per day as the most dedicated marathoner. And he

did this every working day from around age 16 until nearly 80. Even

after 80 he was very vigorously active.

When he was over 100, a researcher from Harvard came to the house to

interview him for the study. He knocked at the door and asked my

uncle where he could find the old man. " He's out in the back

chopping wood " was the reply.

I say this not to brag ... well not just to brag ... but to point out

that previous generations had different ideas of physical

activity. Only the upper classes exercised. Most people worked jobs

that involve long hard manual labor, whether digging ditches,

farming, working in a steel mill, etc. In the early 20th century few

people had office jobs and few had cars so most walked where they

needed to go. Thus the baseline of physical activity for the

average person was much, much higher than today. No TV, no

computers, few cars meant everyone was active to some degree. The

couch potato is a recent phenomenon. So it is not surprising that

exercise was not found as a distinguishing characteristic of

centenarians. But I imagine few of them were couch potatoes by

today's standards.

When you read about a centenarian who was a fisherman in Okinawa or a

sharecropper in Alabama you can be sure this person did not exercise,

but they probably had a very high level of intense physical labor.

I myself exercise for an hour every day, but I still don't burn

nearly as many calories per day as my grandfather, simply because I

am sedentary most the rest of the day.

(By the way, my grandfather also followed a diet that was very

CRON-like. He grew nearly all his own food in his backyard garden

and had abundant fruit and vegetables; and he always abhorred getting

fat, so he cut back on food whenever he gained weight (although he

did eat enough to maintain his high activity level and muscle mass).

It is worth noting that Perls, the director of the Centarian

study, is an advocate of exercise:

http://www.med.harvard.edu/programs/necs/healthy_ageing.doc

As for evidence of exercise specifically, there is the Harvard Alumni

Health Study, a study of 11,130 males who graduated from Harvard

University between 1916 and 1950 This study did find a strong

correlation of exercise and longevity. This also agrees with my

point that few people at that time exercised unless they were of the

upper class and thus exempt from jobs involving hard labor. Harvard

alumni of that period were almost entirely upper class and therefore

exercise was not unusual for that group, and did turn out to have

benefits. The study specifically found the correlation greatest

between longevity and _vigorous_ exercise. Of course correlation is

not causation, but this clearly is evidence for, not against,

exercising.

If you are concerned that exercise will only increase average life

span (rectangularizing the curve) and not maximum life span, keep in

mind that only a tiny fraction of humans reach the present maximum

(c. 120) and if you want to have a good chance of getting there

personally you will need to rectangularize the curve first. You

need to get to 100 before you get to 130.

JAMA. 1995 Apr 19;273(15):1179-84.

Exercise intensity and longevity in men. The Harvard Alumni Health

Study.

Lee IM, Hsieh CC, Paffenbarger RS Jr.

At 06:48 PM 12/14/2006, Rodney wrote:

>Some people have posted 'The Exercise Myth' by Cardiologist Dr.

>Henry

>, and the absence of exercise as a characteristic of the

>centenarians in the New England Centenarian Study, as reasons to be

>skeptical that large amounts of exercise, or even any exercise

>beyond

>the essential minimum, is likely to help longevity.

>

>But we are all open minded here ............ to the evidence.

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Thanks for the Durango Herald article. A quote from which is: " Mrs.

Brinton called Witkes one of the fittest people she'd ever known " .

It brings to mind a quote from cardiologist Dr. 's " The

Exercise Myth " , in which he says: " Fitness has absolutely nothing to

do with health " . The very unfortunate Witkes incident appears to

underline that point yet again. said it and he is not

totally unqualified.

In the book he justifies that position by relating his experience

examining people who were highly 'fit' in the athletic sense of the

term, and tremendously unhealthy (that is why they ended up having to

come to see him) at the same time.

As previously noted, in the book 's view was that there was a

certain minimum amount of exercise that was absolutely essential for

the maintenance of good health. But that was not a large amount and

beyond that amount there was little additional benefit to be gained.

So he was in favor of people making sure to get that threshold

amount, but not go beyond it.

Rodney.

> >

> > Ummm... I had blood work done for life insurance 2 days after a

really

> > hard workout lifting at the gym. Duhhh, my ALT & AST came back

> > high/extremely elevated. Insurer wanted to charge me high risk

cat.

> > premiums. Went to my Dr. for blood work 4 days after no weight

lifting

> > (just easy swimmming) and came back low end of normal. So,

marathon

> > bad for the heart? Depends on your family history, risk factors,

> > overall health. In most cases, with low to no risk factors and

smart

> > balanced training, marathon can be optimal to your health. Why?

> > Because, the average runner only completes 2 marathons per year

so the

> > lifestyle of training for a marathon is the ultimate benefit.

>

> Marathoning can also pinpoint hidden risk factors, even if you've

done

> heavy competition before this stuff can pop up without warning: it

> took a friend's life over the weekend:

> http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-

bin/printable_article_generation.asp?

> article_path=/news/06/news061211_2.htm

>

> (of course, it also can happen when you're driving to work or

sitting

> in front of the TV, if you want to be statistically thorough...)

>

> Enjoy life!

>

>

> in Albuquerque

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill:

> " .... the evidence that exercise helps rectangularize the curve,

> without hurting maximum lifespan "

I think something got garbled in transmission. The experiments in

mice show that the survival curve of exercising mice is more

rectangularized than that of couch-potato mice. So average lifespan

in **improved**. Maximum lifespan is **unchanged** ( " without hurting

maximum lifespan " ) by exercise, and not, as some might suspect,

shortened because of additional oxidation products produced by

exercise.

Does that clarify it?

Rodney.

>

> Rodney, what is the evidence suggesting that exercise is detrimental

> to maximum life span? We have evidence that exercise can maintain

bone

> mass and muscle strength, especially in CRON'ers. Also evidence that

> exercise may " hedge our bet " and provide some protection against our

> dietary errors that may crop up from time to time as we make our

> choices. Optimum diet is a work in progress.

>

> So to my question: Is there any evidence that burning an additional

> say, for sake of argument let's use a fairly large figure, ~300 cals

> per day harms maximum life span? Burning an additional 300 cals over

> sedentary would require consuming additional cals contained in

about 3

> large apples. Maybe I am late to this evidence, so would you mind

> re-posting it or giving your reasoning?

>

> Thank you.

>

> bill

>

>

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@>

wrote:

> >

> > Hi Bill:

> >

> > That certainly seems consistent with the evidence that exercise

helps

> > rectangularize the curve, without hurting maximum lifespan, at

least

> > in ad lib mice.

> >

> > I am not entirely sure that I get my brain around all the rest of

the

> > possible implications. Perhaps I will devote a little time to it

on

> > the weekend.

> >

> > Thanks.

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

>

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

All good points. Thank you. But I do have a few reservations. See

below .......... XXXXX the text within the Xs XXXXX

My principal point is that I do not know what the optimal amount and

type of exercise is. And we are only going to find out with a lot

more studies than we have now. My suspicion is that it is a lot less

than your average 'exercise guru' would have us believe. But when we

have better information, whatever it says, I will be happy to draw

sensible conclusions from it.

For a start we urgently need a study which compares the survival

curve of sedentary CRON hamsters with that of exercising CRON

hamsters. (Hamsters rather than mice because I believe their CVD

incidence is much more similar to ours than that of mice). And

preferably with two exercising groups, one with a lot of exercise and

the other with a more moderate amount. We need studies comparing the

effects of different types of exercise - strength, endurance and

flexibility, also among CRON animals, if someone can figure out how

to do it.

My further comments are below:

> >Some people have posted 'The Exercise Myth' by Cardiologist Dr.

> >Henry

> >, and the absence of exercise as a characteristic of the

> >centenarians in the New England Centenarian Study, as reasons to be

> >skeptical that large amounts of exercise, or even any exercise

> >beyond

> >the essential minimum, is likely to help longevity.

> >

> >But we are all open minded here ............ to the evidence.

>

I am looking forward to the time when we have far more definitive

information that specifically relates to people on CRON. Our

biomarkers seem to have pretty much ruled out death from CVD. And

that is the cause of death most frequently advertised as the

principal benefit to be obtained from exercise. But whatever the

studies show in CRON animals, I will pay very serious attention to it.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

I think we agree on many points. There are a few issues on which I

would clarify my opinion.

At 07:58 PM 12/15/2006, Rodney wrote:

>XXXXX From what you say you seem to have the impression that the

>management of the New England Centenarian Study is incredibly naive

>about how to determine a person's exposure to exercise. You may well

>

>be right. I do not know. But I do know they have measured their

>subjects exercise exposure and found absolutely no consistent

>relationship among the subjects by either amount or type. (From a

>personal email from them in response to my inquiry why it is

>that 'exercise' is not listed as a distinguishing characteristic of

>the members of their subject group)

My point is not so much that exercise or even physical activity was a

distinguishing characteristic of centenarians. Rather, I would claim

that the majority of people -- both long-lived and short-lived people

-- who were born prior 1900 all had customary levels of activity that

were much higher than those of the average person today.

It might seem I am claiming that physical labor accounted for my

grandfather's longevity. I am not quite saying that. There were

plenty of people in his generation who worked just as hard but who

died in their 50s or 60s or 70s. What I am saying is that what we

call strenuous exercise was just a normal condition of life for most

people prior to the last 50 years or so.

What we call a sedentary lifestyle today just did not exist 100 years

ago. Today it is quite normal for someone to spend almost 90% of

their waking hours just sitting: sitting to eat, sitting to drive to

work, sitting at a computer at work, sitting in front of a TV or

computer at home. That degree of sedentary behavior was very rare

in past generations.

What I am saying is that someone who is sedentary today would need to

exercise quite a bit just to reach the average level of activity of

prior generations.

>XXXXX Yes, as regards your grandfather that no doubt is true. But

>predominantly it is the women who are living to over 100 years of

>age, and, especially in the social circumstances of 50 to 100 years

>ago, it was not the women who were digging ditches and doing the

>hardest manual labor. If it was the hard manual labor that accounted

>

>for the longevity of these people then men ought to predominate

>among

>centenarians. But conspicuously they do not. XXXXX

But the women were cooking meals from scratch (really from scratch

.... plucking the chicken, kneading the flour, etc.) They were

washing clothes by hand, beating rugs to clean them etc. So they

were pretty active by today's standard.

But in any case, the biology of longevity is different for men and

women. Women seem to live longer whether they exercise or not. It

is quite possible exercise could increase lifespan for men and/or for

women without contradicting the observation that women, in general,

lived longer.

Another point is that in prior generations, the things that killed

people were not heart disease, but more typically infectious diseases

to which women are more resistant.

(Oh, and by the way, my grandad also caught the 1918 flu while

serving in the trenches in France. He survived both the war and the

flu.)

>conviction. But we all agree, I think, (along with Dr. ) that

>

>there is a certain amount of exercise we absolutely must get in

>order

>to be able, in old age, to function the way we will want. As I like

>to say: " Flexible enough to be able to put on one's clothes

>unassisted and pick things up off the floor; strong enough to move

>small to medium sized household items around when necessary; and

>with

>good enough endurance to play eightheen holes walking around an

>empty

>course carrying a few favorite clubs (a 2 iron, 5 iron, 7 iron and

>putter for me!) " So for me the issue is, **how much** exercise do we

>

>need for this? XXXXX

Agreed. How much is the issue.

>shown the same thing pretty clearly. That mice which exercise have a

>

>more rectangularized survival curve (and so a higher average

>lifespan) than those that do not. But those same studies also found

>that the exercising mice did NOT have a longer maximum lifespan. Did

>

>the Harvard Alumni study find its subjects had a higher maximum

>lifespan? And the mice were not doing hard labor in the fields.

>They did not have to toil in order to survive. Their food was

>supplied ad lib at no effort to them. They took whatever amount of

>exercise they happened to feel like taking, when they were in the

>mood to take it.

But mice don't watch TV or play video games. And they don't have

jobs that require them to sit still all day. TV and video games are

like crack cocaine. They give you the mental rush of activity

without actual physical activity.

If someone were deprived of TV, computers (and books, too -- mice

don't read books) and they did not have to work at all, what level of

exercise would they seek? Look at what people do on vacation. They

are often very active. They ski, they swim, they play

tennis. Without a TV in front of the couch, being a couch potato

would be boring.

>So, based on the mice experiments, it seems to me

>much less exercise than hard toil in the fields is enough to gain

>the

>advantage demonstrated (which would certainly be 's

>approach). Which returns us to the key question here. How much

>exercise do we need in order to obtain the benefits we seek? XXXXX

Toiling in the fields 8-10 hours a day is probably more than the

optimal level of activity. But sitting in front of a computer all

day is certainly less than optimal.

Where is the golden mean? I would suggest that exercising 30 minutes

a day, when compared to toiling 8-10 hours a day is an almost trivial

level of activity. One could spend 4 hours a day at the gym and

still burn less calories than most people burned in past generations.

My claim is that the current generation of humans is un-naturally

sedentary compared to earlier humans or even to other animal

species. Being sedentary has rewards (in the form of entertainment

or in the form of payment for work) which it did not have in earlier

days and does not have for other species.

>I am looking forward to the time when we have far more definitive

>information that specifically relates to people on CRON. Our

>biomarkers seem to have pretty much ruled out death from CVD. And

>that is the cause of death most frequently advertised as the

>principal benefit to be obtained from exercise. But whatever the

>studies show in CRON animals, I will pay very serious attention to

>it.

I am not sure that animal studies will settle the issue very

clearly. How does one translate activity levels from one species to

another, especially if one is talking about voluntary exercise? On

top of that we are talking about laboratory mice, which may have been

bred (inadvertently perhaps) to be sedentary.

CR effects seem to be common to many species, but the effects of

exercise may not be. We study mice and rats. If we studied horses

we might find a much higher level of voluntary activity and conclude

people should exercise more. If we studied tortoises we'd conclude

we should stay in bed. Cheetahs? Run real fast for 30 secs several

times a day, and lie down the rest of the day. Dolphins? Spend 24

hours a day swimming for longevity. I think you see where I am

going.

Even if one limits the discussion to rats and mice, it's not clear

which strains mimic human aging best. Sarcopenia (loss of muscle

mass with age) occurs in humans, but is rather different in rats, and

differs between rat strains.

Biogerontology. 2005;6(5):335-43.

The Fischer 344/NNiaHSd X Brown Norway/BiNia is a better model of

sarcopenia

than the Fischer 344/NNiaHSd: a comparative analysis of muscle mass

and

contractile properties in aging male rat models.

Rice KM, Linderman JK, Kinnard RS, Blough ER.

But, and here I am sure we agree, what we don't know is still a lot

more than what we do know. At best we are making educated guesses at

this point. Although I tend to come down on the side of more

exercise, I also see some merit in the opposing point of view, at

least for some people (e.g. those with low heart disease risk

factors). I keep in mind that with new evidence science can turn

on a dime -- witness the recent change in opinion on estrogen

replacement.

Fadden

[Guest guest]

--- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...>

wrote:

>

> > As for evidence of exercise specifically, there is

> > the Harvard Alumni

> > Health Study, a study of 11,130 males who graduated

> > from Harvard

> > University between 1916 and 1950 This study did

> > find a strong

> > correlation of exercise and longevity.

>

> Up to a point where the more exercise was not

> beneficial but harmful. I beleive it was around over

> 2500-3000 calories expended a week, which is about

> 350-425 calories a day. Which is about 1 hour for

> most people. Which is also the same amount the

> National Weight Control Registry found in those who

> successfully maintained long term weight loss. And I

> would agree, that it is also probably an amount that

> humans got " naturally " before we had our modern

> lifestyle.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

Hello, Hesitate to repost this, but some may not have read it.

" An evolutionary perspective on human physical activity: implications

for health. "

http://snipurl.com/9k0w

This more or less agrees with your statement above.

a=z

[Guest guest]

At 03:22 PM 12/18/2006, aequalsz wrote:

>--- In

><mailto: %40> ,

>Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...>

>wrote:

>

> > Up to a point where the more exercise was not

> > beneficial but harmful. I beleive it was around over

> > 2500-3000 calories expended a week, which is about

> > 350-425 calories a day. Which is about 1 hour for

> > most people. Which is also the same amount the

> > National Weight Control Registry found in those who

> > successfully maintained long term weight loss. And I

> > would agree, that it is also probably an amount that

> > humans got " naturally " before we had our modern

>

>Hello, Hesitate to repost this, but some may not have read it.

>

> " An evolutionary perspective on human physical activity:

>implications

>for health. "

>

><http://snipurl.com/9k0w>http://snipurl.com/9k0w

>

>This more or less agrees with your statement above.

>

>a=z

I had not seen that study, but it certainly agrees with the point I

was making. I'm also glad to hear about the 1 hour a day estimate

Jeff brought up. That's what I do and it seems intuitively about

right. I estimate I burn about 350 calories in that hour. More than

an hour a day and I feel I am wearing myself out. Less and my

cholesterol and weight creep up unless I restrict food more beyond

what I feel is comfortable for me.

I try to exercise an hour every day (7 days a week) but if I am the

least bit injured or sick I don't exercise. I think injury or

illness (even a cold) is stress enough, and there is plenty of time

to exercise when one is feeling well. If one exercises when injured

one risks permanent damage. One of the best predictors of long-term

exercise in a study of runners was found to be absence of injury.

Fadden