« Corrections | Main | Pretty Big Rock »
April 14, 2005
How Much Should We Exercise?
Even though I recognize that I can pick up the phone and call him anytime, I still get this little thrill every time MR comments on my blog. It's like a voice from on high. Remember that time he told off the people who were saying I was anorexic? That was definitely a "Nobody puts Baby in a corner" moment.
Anyway, in response to Willie's question re: exercise, MR says, "The archives are your friend." No, the archives are MY friend! No one loves the archives like I do. Even now that I can talk to the real MR, I still love to read his old posts. So I did a bit of archive searching for you, dear bloggiefriends.
He says:
So, in other words, being utterly, totally inactive is bad for you.
Surprise! And in fact, it's worse than being nonsedentary ("fit") and
overweight. OK, a LITTLE surprising -- but again, nothing to do with CR, which is (damn it) about Caloric intake, not body weight or % fat, as many studies document. This is like the many previous reports I keep hammering on, showing that eg being frankly deficient (~1/2 DRI) in folic acid increases risk of colon cancer, or that being frankly n3 deficient causes heart disease. It is a fallacy to jump from this fact to the idea that megadose folate, daily fish oil capsules, or a regular program of vigorous physical activity will do any better than these minimal standards. Indeed, in all 3 cases, there is evidence to the contrary.
Ie, it is quite consistent with the phenomenon I mentioned above: "There is a big jump between the flat-out couch potato and the modest walker; it's diminishing returns after that." Previous studies by Blair's group (ie, the Cooper Institute) show just this (eg (6)).
Here's the point: doing some exercise is good for you! But there's no advantage to becoming a power lifter of a marathon runner. From a longevity perepective, these are not nearly as good as practicing CR and exercising moderately, just enough to keep up cardio and bone health. A lot of people when they hear about CR think it's about being thin, and that you can get there by either eating less or exercising more. Not so. The CR effect seems to be caused by HOW MANY CALORIES YOU EAT. So if Blonde Girl runs five miles a day, lifts weights, and eats 1500 calories a day and weighs 102, and Redheaded Girl walks on the treadmill thirty minutes a day, does a few push-ups, and eats 1200 calories a day and weighs 102, Redheaded Girl is going to achieve lifespan extension benefits. Redheaded Girl and Blonde Girl are both "underweight" for their heights. Both enjoy eating large salads, and find men eating cheesesteaks unattractive. (It's a Philly thing, you might not understand.) But one of them will live longer than the other. Neither of them are likely to die of an early heart attack or type 2 diabetes or any of the diseases caused by obesity, but beyond obesity avoidance, the CR girl is getting the life-extension benefits.
Here's what MR actually does: he runs twenty minutes a day and does some kind of resistance training three times a week.
Here's why I am in trouble: I haven't started exercising again. I keep meaning to, but then I got sick with that horrible cold. So there, it's not my fault.
I used to love to walk four miles a day, and I walked them in an hour so I was going fast -- four miles an hour! Get it? Anyway, I moved and now the Starbucks is a lot closer... as in I don't have to walk two miles each way to get my coffee, so I haven't gotten my whole exercise thing together. There's a gym in my apartment complex and I love the treadmill and I used to lift weights (a lot, really, but now I would do less) and I really need to get back to exercising and if I don't my bones will turn into a little pile of bagel-like junk on the floor. I know, I know. I need to get a ferritin test too. I need to make sure I'm spelling that correctly too... Aubrey? (Aubrey de Grey, in addition to his brilliant work in reversing aging, is an excellent spell-checker.)
So... we should exercise some, but choose our exercises carefully so that we get the maximum benefit for cardio and bone health while burning the fewest calories. And we should focus on keeping our calories low!
MR and I have this argument about running every time he makes me run to catch a bus. First, it is my belief that if we would just leave TWO MINUTES EARLIER for the bus, we would not have to run, and then we could avoid this argument. That aside, the argument is about running. He likes running (well, he hates it, but he believes he should do it so he does it) because it's a quick and efficient way to get a cardio workout and it causes lots of pounding on the street so it's good for the bones or something like that. I think running is bad for you, and so I only run if a large wild animal is chasing me or if I'm likely to be abandoned in the middle of Calgary in winter if I don't catch a bus*. Running is bad for the knees, and I had shin splints in college and don't want to do that again. Walking really fast gives the same cardio benefits without the pounding on the knees. Skipping is also fun, but will get you odd looks as you skip happily down the street, unless you happen to be under the age of ten. Meanwhile, when I am exercising (which I promise I will do, today!) I lift weights, which is really good for your bones. I read a bunch of books about it by Miriam Nelson.
So there. I am not running. And could we possibly leave just a moment or two earlier for the bus?
*MR would never actually abandon me in the middle of Calgary in winter if we didn't catch the bus. We'd just have to stand there freezing until the next bus came by, and no doubt annoy other waiters-for-the-bus by snuggling "for warmth." Inches away from a freezing death and all...
Posted by april at April 14, 2005 7:43 AM
Comments
Are you double-jointed? If so, running is not for you. It means you have elastic cartilage that is easily damaged by impact. It hurts to run compared to "normal" people. Dr. Fred, a rheumatologist, told me never to run or jog as an exercise regimen or I'd have joint damage. Swimming, elliptical and bicycling are okay.
Posted by: Mary at April 14, 2005 9:27 AM
Tsk tsk on you both, April and Mary. Considering how carefully you research most of your nutritionally related decision, the comments about running seem to be very subjective and based on sample sizes of one. Before you post negatively about running and knee injury, you may want to do a bit more research. Ageing, Long-distance running and the Development of Musculoskeletal Disability (Am. Journal of Medicine Vol 82, 1987) and Running and the Development of Disability with Age - Annals of Internal Medicine Vol 121 1994. These studies suggest there is not a connection between running and development of these injuries. (BTW, you have probably already figured out that I like running, therefore I am biased, I admit.) However, my fellow Canuck, your beloved tall MR is very correct on two points - running is a very efficient cardiovascular workout, and the very "stress" or "pounding" which results is what makes it a bone building exercise, unlike swimming or cycling which due to non- weight bearing do little for spinal or hip bone density. Walking is weight bearing, but not as stressful, therefore less of a stimulant to bone strength. In any case, I suggest you give the articles a read. They may not convert you to running (some people just don't like running) but at least you might have something to think about during your next walk, swim or cycle ride. Keep moving, and keep up the good cr work.
Posted by: Chris at April 14, 2005 12:48 PM
Hypermobility syndrome is indeed a common medical condition (10-15% of the population):
http://www.medicinenet.com/hypermobility_syndrome/article.htm
I suspect few people with it are voluntary runners, since they will be prone to knee problems and discomfort and are not likely to persist in running for any length of time. Perhaps a lot of people that "don't like running" are hypermobile. For me, it's just too uncomfortable. High foot arches, double-jointedness and the ability to bend your thumb to touch your forearm are indicators. There are obviously degrees of this. As I said, my rheumatologist friend told me not to run - that his practice was full of older hypermobiles that had bad arthritis. His practiced eye noticed my hypermobility the second week I knew him - just from how I sat and positioned my hands and arms.
It's actually pretty important to maintain muscle tone and strength with this. Like April, I really enjoy weight training - and I love yoga and dancing. Hypermobile people are often good dancers and gymnasts. Dr. Fred says all belly dancers are hypermobile.
Posted by: Mary at April 14, 2005 7:27 PM
I know that a lot of exercising for me helps me a lot in reducing the stress a lot, especially weight lifiting. I do a bit of running, although there is a lot of bad whether around in the UK and theres not much scenery either! Although I actually used to run about 2 miles a day home from school, Feet hurt quite a bit after a while.
I wonder how them Adidas 1 intelligent trainers are Hmmm.
Posted by: Matt at April 15, 2005 8:01 AM
Hi Mary: I agree that hypermobility is a real condition, and you may very well have it. My area of disagreement is that hypermobility immediately makes running any more dangerous or possibly damaging than anything else. All I'm saying is that this is a very uncharacteristic "subjective" assessment, when you guys tend to typically be very objective and scientific. One of the things I enjoy most about reading the CR info sites and these blogs is that almost everything said is either supported by good research, or as April has done many times, clearly identified as her opinion only. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, as long as it's not passed on as fact. Dr. Fred may be a great rheumatologist, but unless he has some research to back his opinion up, it's only 1 doc's opinion. Sure, lots of his patients may be hypermobile, and may have arthritis. How many of them were runners? Do they have arthritis because they're hypermobile, or are they hypermobile because they sprained their ankle badly in 1962, and the resulting ligament laxity (which would be diagnosed as hypermobility) eventually led to arthritis? Would a regimen of exercise including a cautious running program and strength training give them the muscular strength and endurance needed to keep their joints in stable positions and healthy? I don't know, but I still haven't seen the research that supports increased arthritis in runners, hypermobile or not - that's all I'm saying. Interestingly, I would argue that if your weight training is done at a significant enough level to lead to strenght gains, then a hypermobile person would want to be very careful to lift properly, keeping the weights in control and watching the range of movement, or it may lead to further stretching of the tissues limiting movement. Therefore, a carefully designed and properly performed weight training session would be good, poorly designed or carried out would be bad. Why would this be any different for running? If carefully designed and implemented, a running program should be just as safe as any other activity. Now, exercise is just as individual as diet - some people love running, some people hate it, some people love egg whites and cottage cheese, other hate them. The point is not whether you should run or not, but that comments in the blog should be made as carefully about these issues as about nutrition, as you have a good sized following who read this stuff and listen to it. All I'm saying is, be as cautious to point out that the decision not to run (or lift weights or cycle) is something people should determine for themselves. If you have research to support any particular view, that's great, please post it. If not, then let people know that this is what you do (or don't do) but that's just your opinion and they should research it themselves. Sorry for the tone, I'm not trying to be argumentative, really. I just hate unsupported bad running press as much as you all probably hate unsupported bad CR press. Keep exercising!
Take care
Posted by: Chris at April 15, 2005 8:57 AM
I know this was postd a while ago but in response to these messages especially by Matt. I used to do a lot of long distance running when I was at school aged 14/15 and used to get a lot of knee pain. I was told I had growing pains. When I was 23 I was diagnosed with hypermobility (a bit late as you are born hypermobile) I was then told that this was what was causing my pain and was then told by so many physiotherapists, doctors, and rheumatologists who are specialists in Hypermobility that you should not do impact sports like running if you are hypermobile because it can cause knee problems and foot pain. I can go along with this as I am now 30 and am registered disabled due to knee pain and it giving way which many specialists have put down to me have hypermobility and me running a lot as a teenager. I also have a lot of pain in my feet, hips and pelvis which means I struggle to mobilise. This has been backed up scientifically as well.
Posted by: michaela riley at October 20, 2007 11:34 AM
I am also hypermobile and I hike and backpack reasonably well but as soon as I try to run or jump I am in horrible pain. The impact is too great. I get shin pain and knee pain and lower back pain.... There are actually figures that discuss the amount of impact on your body when you run or walk and I don't remember the numbers but I do recall that running had a significantly higher impact.
Posted by: Rachel at October 22, 2007 10:27 PM
Can anyone suggest a Dr. for my son to go to....I believe he has hypermobility that is causing him pain. He lives in Dallas. Who specializes in hypermobility in the U.S.? Help!
Posted by: Julie at August 4, 2008 10:10 AM
