Anti-Aging & More Than You Ever Wanted To Know About Exercise
I've put this article in for a couple reasons. The first is you may read about it and I wanted to point out the flaws and the second reason is how this trial has been manipulated in the media.
This is so cleverly worded it's annoying! It's not an animal data unless the worms have rapidly moved up the pecking order. So in worms rilmenidine seems to mimic fasting and in animals they claim we know that fasting can prolong life which by the way has not completely translated to humans regarding fasting. Even the study quote in the article is on worms and fruit flies. But what's irritating is they have this recent data in worms and then they make the giant leap that it will also work in animals.
This article is very important to women as they had the most pronounced effect from umm. In this study and there were different subgroups but they literally saw an increase in brain volume in women and men 40 to 73 years of age. It was published in a very prestigious journal but as always it will be interesting to have a further studies.
Here is the actual article:
The article is about zinc and lung fibrosis but the mechanism by which it seems to mediate lung fibrosis. I'm not a fan of people speculating is indicated by the first article but given the safety of zinc and the mechanism of action they demonstrated in this study it may make sense to add this to one's daily supplement regimen. It would be nice to see a confirmatory study before we all go out and buy zinc: although I do take it.
https://www.thebrighterside.news/post/zinc-supplements-could-reverse-lung-damage-new-study-finds
There's an overwhelming amount of information here on exercise. If you decide to read through it I would suggest you try and find the areas that are of interest to your family and you. Final thought I disagree, I do think you can do too much exercise to your detriment. Although , as Justin describes it healthy moderate exercise there is a dose correlation.
Nonetheless and once again I think it is remarkable with Justin has put together.
What to do if you feel sick just now but I thought I’d start with a large bunch of exercise snippets here. First, published just now using >70k UK Biobank participants, 4,000-4,500 steps per day is linked with a markedly lowered risk of all-cause death and CV disease, further reduced up to 9,000-10,500 steps/day (no Δ dose-response for sedentary time levels):
This study adds new evidence to the literature by examining the dose-response association of daily steps with mortality and incident CVD risk in high and low sedentary time groups. For all-cause mortality, the optimal dose occurred between 9000 and 10 500 steps/day across sedentary time groups. Within the high sedentary time group, they observed lower risk compared with the low sedentary time group at an equivalent number of daily steps. They found a lower incident CVD risk for an equivalent number of daily steps within the low sedentary time group compared with the high sedentary time group. There was consistency in the optimal and minimal steps/day association with incident CVD risk between the two groups at just under 10 000 steps/day and 4500 steps/day, respectively.
Second, a study of physical activity in >965,000 people (3 large cohorts) suggests that reduction of inflammation (INFLA-score) is the link to lowering all-cause death, CV and cancer mortality:
Thirdly, in the BMJ recently, an effective treatment for depression from a systematic review of >200 unique RCTs where the benefit of exercise is in fact proportional to intensity of exercise prescribed:
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, exercise showed moderate effects on depression compared with active controls, either alone or in combination with other established treatments such as cognitive behaviour therapy. In isolation, the most effective exercise modalities were walking or jogging, yoga, strength training, and dancing. The benefits from exercise tended to be proportional to the intensity prescribed, with vigorous activity being better. Benefits were equally effective for different weekly doses, for people with different comorbidities, or for different baseline levels of depression. Although confidence in many of the results was low, treatment guidelines may be overly conservative by conditionally recommending exercise as complementary or alternative treatment for patients in whom psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy is either ineffective or unacceptable. Instead, guidelines for depression ought to include prescriptions for exercise and consider adapting the modality to participants’ characteristics and recommending more vigorous intensity exercises. Effects were as good as psychotherapy or drugs:
Fourthly, women derive even more protection than men for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Below, in a population-scale nationally representative cohort of U.S. adults, although both sexes achieved a peak survival benefit at 300 minutes of weekly aerobic moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), women derived a 24% mortality reduction that was substantially greater than for men who derived an 18% mortality reduction from the same degree of regular exercise; similarly, for any given dose of physical activity (PA) leading up to 300 min/wk, women derived proportionately greater benefits than men. Importantly, the greater magnitude of PA-related survival benefit in women than men was consistently found across varied measures and types of PA including frequency, duration per session, and intensity of aerobic PA, as well as frequency of muscle strengthening activities:
Fifthly, exercise mitigates the effects of social isolation and loneliness. Social isolation and loneliness pose major societal challenges so in this cohort study using accelerometry, electronic diaries and neuroimaging in a community-based sample of 317 young adults, researchers show that people felt affectively worse when lacking social contact, but less so when engaging in physical activity. This putative compensatory mechanism was present even at small physical activity doses and was pronounced in individuals with higher brain functional connectivity within the default mode network signaling risk for depression. Social-affective benefits of movement were higher in people showing exacerbated loneliness and were replicated throughout the pandemic; this has the potential to improve public health in the post-pandemic world:
So, anyone eat too much recently. Well, a few lucky people find a fitness routine they love and stick to it. But many of us simply want to get our workout over with as quickly as possible. For those in the latter camp, it’s hard to resist headlines claiming we can get in shape in five minutes or less per day. Such a thing seems too good to be true, but an emerging body of research suggests these micro-workouts, a few 20 second rounds of stair-climbing, four-second sprints on an exercise bike, or two minutes of dashing to catch the bus, can improve fitness, prevent disease and extend one’s life. These activities are easier to slip into your schedule than the recommended 150 minutes of moderate weekly exercise (or 75, if you make it vigorous, by running, for instance). However, some scientists say such micro-workouts, also called exercise snacks, are oversold. And even those who tout their benefits say claims that they are as good as, or better than, more traditional workouts go too far.
The concept builds on more than 2 decades of research into HIIT, or high-intensity interval training. HIIT involves a series of nearly all-out efforts, usually 20 to 60 seconds long, interspersed with short rests, and then repeated again and again. Some studies suggest that HIIT workouts deliver many of the same benefits as steady, moderate-intensity exercise, including improved aerobic fitness and blood vessel function, in less time:
Not everyone agrees. Most lab studies of short-but-intense efforts are small, limiting their statistical power. Outside of the lab, wrist-worn activity monitors allow for studies of larger groups of people but may not accurately capture factors like intensity, especially for short periods. Plus, while studies suggest that intense intervals are safe, even for people in cardiac rehab, strenuous exercise can, in some cases, raise the risk of sudden heart problems. Lastly, micro-workouts may not actually motivate people to exercise; research indicates time restraints aren’t actually the biggest barrier. A more significant one, is that many people don’t enjoy it, especially when they’re starting out. And intense workouts are often more unpleasant than moderate ones. The bottom line is intense bursts of effort for five minutes or less one or more times per day probably do provide some benefit, especially if you truly don’t have any other time to exercise or if you spend long stretches glued to your chair.
More research, currently underway, will determine the optimal “dose” — how many bursts you need, and how long and hard they should be, to produce meaningful changes in your health. However, decades of studies, with many thousands of participants, more clearly support the health benefits of racking up around 150 minutes of moderate activity, or 75 minutes of vigorous movement, per week. So what you shouldn’t do is replace another type of exercise habit, especially one you enjoy, with micro-workouts:
And in the age-old debate of walking vs running, who wins? Walking is among the world’s most popular forms of exercise, and far and away the most favoured. And for good reason: it’s simple, accessible and effective. Taking regular walks lowers the risk of many health problems including anxiety, depression, diabetes and some cancers. But not too slowly, right as per these data just published:
However, once your body becomes accustomed to walking, you might want to pick up the pace, said Alyssa Olenick, an exercise physiologist. If you can nudge even part of your walk into a run, it offers many of the same physical and mental benefits in far less time. But just how much better is running? And how can you turn your walk into a run?
When considering the health benefits of an activity like walking or running, there are two connected factors to keep in mind. One is the workout’s effect on your fitness, that is, how it improves the efficiency of your heart and lungs. The second is the ultimate positive outcome: does it help you live a longer life?
The gold standard for assessing fitness is VO2 max, a measure of how much oxygen your body uses when you’re exercising vigorously. It’s also a strong predictor of life span. Even doing a small amount of activity, like taking slow steps throughout the day somewhat improves VO2 max compared with staying completely sedentary, according to a 2021 study of 2,000 middle-aged men and women. But bigger benefits come when you begin walking faster, which raises your heart and breathing rates.
If you’re working hard enough that you can still talk but not sing, you’ve crossed from light to moderate physical activity. Studies suggest that moderate activity strengthens your heart and creates new mitochondria, which produce fuel for your muscles. What makes running better? So how does running compare with walking? It’s more efficient, for one thing. Why? It’s more than the increased speed. Rather than lifting one foot at a time, running involves a series of bounds. This requires more force, energy and power than walking. For many people first starting out, running at any pace, even a slow jog, will make your heart and lungs work harder. That can raise your level of effort to what’s known as vigorous activity, meaning you’re breathing hard enough that you can speak only a few words at a time.
Guidelines recommend 150 minutes to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, like brisk walking, or half as much for vigorous activity. That might suggest that running is twice as good as walking. But when it comes to the key outcome of longevity, some studies have found running to be even more effective than that.
Over a decade ago, researchers asked more than 400,000 adults how much vigorous exercise (like jogging or running) and moderate exercise (like brisk walking) they did. They found that regular five-minute runs extended subjects’ life spans as much as going for 15-minute walks did. Regular 25-minute runs and 105-minute walks each resulted in about a 35 percent lower risk of dying during the following eight years:
Those numbers make sense, given running’s effect on fitness. Another study found that regular runners, including those jogging slower than 6 miles per hour, were 30% fitter than walkers and sedentary people. They also had a 30% lower risk of dying over the next 15 years:
Maybe we should be looking at walking and running as being on a continuum. The biggest benefit occurs when moving from none to a little exercise. Whether you’re walking or running, consistency matters most. But after that, adding at least some vigorous exercise to your routine will increase the benefits.
But, having said the above, here’s the dramatic reduction in type 2 diabetes risk with walking here, independent of the effect of walking on weight reduction. Speed matters. Compared with easy/casual walking (<3.2 km/hour), the relative risk of type 2 diabetes was 0.85 for average/normal walking (3.2–4.8 km/hour), but 0.61 for brisk/striding walking (>6.4 km/hour). Dose-response analysis suggested that the risk of type 2 diabetes decreased significantly at a walking speed of 4 km/h and above:
Further, regular physical activity is associated with lower cancer incidence and mortality, as well as with a lower rate of tumour recurrence. The epidemiological evidence is supported by preclinical studies in animal models showing that regular exercise delays the progression of cancer, including highly aggressive malignancies. Although the mechanisms underlying the antitumorigenic effects of exercise remain to be defined, an improvement in cancer immunosurveillance is likely important, with different immune cell subtypes stimulated by exercise to infiltrate tumours. There is also evidence that immune cells from blood collected after an exercise bout could be used as adoptive cell therapy for cancer. A team now address the importance of muscular activity for maintaining a healthy immune system and discuss the effects of a single bout of exercise (that is, ‘acute’ exercise) and those of ‘regular’ exercise (that is, repeated bouts) on anticancer immunity, including tumour infiltrates:
And exercise may after all benefit Long Covid. In a randomised trial in 589 participants with Long Covid showing quality of life benefit for an 8-week, individualised, online, home-based, supervised group physical and mental rehab program (REGAIN) compared with usual care at 3 and 12 months. Working with patients, UK researchers designed a trial called REGAIN to test a way to provide mental health therapy and exercise guidance to people with long Covid without making their conditions worse. People enrolled in the online program said their health improved more than people who received standard care, which was a one-hour advice session on how to cope with such problems as fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog, and muscle aches. “We're not under any illusions. REGAIN is not a panacea,” study co-author Gordon McGregor said:
In the non-exercise literature, “Sitting is the new smoking.” Remember when everyone was saying that? Well, a new study finds that people like me, who spend their days predominantly sitting at work, have a 16% higher risk of dying from all causes compared to those who don’t sit all day at work, even after adjusting for factors like sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and BMI. That increased risk jumps to 34% more when just considering cardiovascular disease, according to the research:
The study, which builds on years of existing evidence, followed almost half a million participants in a Taiwanese health surveillance program between 1996-2017, collecting information on their habits sitting on the job, leisure physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters:
So, what can we do? Increasing physical activity by 15-30 minutes a day seemed to mitigate the excess risk for sitting workers, researchers found. The study finds that alternating between sitting and non-sitting at work or increasing leisure time physical activity (LTPA) can alleviate the harms. For example, individuals who alternated between sitting and non-sitting at work experienced a 16% reduction in all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly sat at work. Furthermore, they found that individuals who mostly sit at work but engage in high LTPA have all-cause mortality comparable to that of individuals who mostly do not sit at work but had lower LTPA.
These findings suggest that the detrimental effects are more salient in individuals engaged with no to low level of physical activity, aligning with the 2018 update from the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Their observed hazard ration (risk of death) of 1.16, comparing individuals mostly sitting at work with those mostly not sitting at work, aligns with a recent cohort study where an HR of 1.15 was reported for all-cause mortality when comparing 8 to 11 hours of prolonged sitting with less than 4 hours.
