If this is an observational study (and i haven’t looked at the study, yet, just the comments here) I’m willing to bet that the times are “time that i spend in the gym when i go there to lift”, or the equivalent. No one tracks exactly how many minutes of their workout is actually spent lifting. EVERYONE budgets the time they spend “lifting”, even if the budgeted time is zero.
In general, I think that young athletic people who suddenly keel over are either just genetically unlucky in some way (e.g. malformed heart) or were abusing some illicit substances (fun-type or performance-type). Any sense otherwise is due to context free reporting about a fit 30 year old having a heart attack mid-jog.
Mostly unrelated but my wife is probably experiencing post-nasal drip (she coughs like crazy when she’s lying down but largely fine when standing). I put some blocks under the legs at the top of the bed, so we’re at a bit of an angle (didn’t fully solve it, but she’s not in as bad of condition now). My AI said that for young, healthy people it’s probably mostly positives to sleep on a slight incline but for people with a weak heart, having 8 hours of not needing to fight gravity is what they need to keep living.
I’d put the moral of the story as being, “Don’t have a weak heart.” If you do then, at some level, even just sleeping at a 5 degree incline might kill you.
Yes to me. Women have at baseline less muscle mass so I’d expect divergent results.
Yes in terms of magnitude of effect, which is why seeing it reproduced in different studies and the cited meta-analysis adds strength to the finding.
My quibble is that over 150 minutes is a big range, necessary by the smaller number that reaches that amount or more, but includes those at 151 and those at 300. It certainly could be that the numbers are driven by a very few who are in much higher numbers not the 150 to say 180 range.
Anyway. The most important point in the context is not the possible harms of doing “too much”, but how so little - just half an hour twice a week, really doing ANY resistance exercise - added to a decent aerobic program - increases the benefits so very much.
There are a lot of differences between women and men with regards to weight lifting and exercise. Muscle mass, hormones, even bone structure. I’d be surprised if the impact of the effect wasn’t different. A factor of two sounds plausible.
My husband’s favorite yoga studio is opening a branch in town. Maybe i should pick up a weekly session there, to complement seeing a personal trainer and square dancing. I should also walk more. Maybe I’ll go down to the basement right now and watch some Olympics from the treadmill.
Exactly.
I get that women and men have many differences and different responses to many things. Obvious differences include muscle mass and how people choose to exercise and strength train.
When I was in university, I lifted weights regularly, had little idea what I was doing, and had no delay using any machine in the gym since so few people were there (just us freaks). Few students lifted weights. Weightlifting became much more popular around the time Jersey Shore was popular. I would now guess a majority of university students lift weights. University gyms are incredibly crowded. Many students do not know what they are doing, but many do - there is a ton of good information now available which was hard to find 20 years ago. Many women in the gym now know exactly what they are doing, and train in ways that increase strength and muscle (if they lift, cardio is still more popular).
But I suspect these differences apply less to nutrition and things that cause longevity. Do men and women really differ that much in how they digest a healthful meal? In how their bodies sense nutrients and use that to fuel growth? In the factors that encourage longer life? Not all domains need be very different between the sexes. In longevity, a factor of two is enormous to me. I could see 1.2 or something like that.
The heart has to overcome a lot of gravity to pump blood to the head. The vessels need to overcome a lot of gravity to return blood to the heart from the feet. These forces are dramatically reduced if lying flat, or almost flat.
I agree genes and gimmicks account for many heart problems in younger people. Elevating the bed occasionally helps for acid reflux, perhaps sinusitis. I would be surprised if it helped the heart and lungs much in the absence of severe edema and congestion.
It’s not living twice as long!
It is more that the impact on the hazard ratio associated with strength training is less, peaking at a 14% reduction, while women who strength train just once a week gain about that much and those who train two to three times a week are apparently associated with something like a 28% HR reduction (with error bars).
I’d think of it sort like how you’d likely be unsurprised to see the biggest impacts of strength training on male mortality looking at the males with the least muscle mass to start.
I am skeptical. Sudden death in the young heart related is generally during strenuous activity. Cardiomyopathies. Dysrhythmias. Head of bed up is for heart failure. Not a common young person issue. Maybe a few with bad valve disease? Never seen it. Maybe a few of the cardiomyopathies? Harms from head of bed up? Get your AI to provide a cite. I’m smelling a hallucination.
For young people, probably.
I would expect that there’s a few people who are truly at death’s door - due to cancer, extreme substance abuse, famine, etc. - so, despite their youth, you could probably look at most people in the category and understand instinctively that they’re not long for the world.
But, an outwardly healthy person in their 30s who’s going to kick off over a bad heart, probably won’t discover that until they’re doing something that gets their heart racing.
Flat beds probably mostly apply to people in their 90s and up.
Still. I don’t think so. Maybe there’s something it found that people with severe congestive heart failure have head of bed up and are not long for this world? Maybe an association with pressure ulcers in the very infirm?
Seriously please ask your AI for the source of that.
It’s linking to:
And this:
So probably more of a theoretical concern than a grave one.
Not even that.
The second is theoretical about feet up, not head.
The first is in reference to head of bed up as a treatment for orthostatic hypotension, apparently a standard treatment (today I learned) - apparently not so much so in the elderly, and maybe some puffy legs.
Nothing there about horizontal resting a weak heart.
Though may belong in an AI thread.
I get what you are saying and did not think it was an absolute measure of longevity years. But it still seems high even as a hazard ratio; exercising three times a week is much more than once.
I always liked this study using pushup ability as a cheap stress test. The data is not perfect, but implies pushup capacity is a more accurate measure of 10 year CVD (heart attack, say) risk than VO2max, while being cheap and easy to perform.
(Cohort study of 1104 firemen, about 40 years old, followed for ten years. Doing more than 40 push-ups associated with a much lower 10 year risk of heart disease than those unable to do 10 push-ups:)
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2724778
The surprise to me in that study is that there were any firemen who couldn’t do more than ten pushups! Let alone something like 7% of them. (Yes they were obese, so not only a measure of strength but of weight as well.) Of note even being “able to perform 11 or more push-ups at baseline had significantly reduced risk of subsequent CVD events.”
Aren’t fire fighters tested on upper body strength to become fire fighters? It’s not exactly the same muscle groups, but i would have thought ability to do pushups would be highly correlated with ability to carry an unconscious person out of a fire.
(Agreeing with DSeid )
From the article:
The use of age and BMI in occupational settings as determinants of fitness for duty has been avoided owing to concerns related to the Americans with Disabilities Act.35-37 However, push-up capacity is a functional test. Many fire and police departments have neglected to provide periodic medical examinations or functional tests such as stress tests owing to cost concerns.38,39
This is a bit concerning. As a random sampling that study shows relatively few firefighters are actually very physically fit. And some scarily unfit. Not even more than ten pushups?!? And expected to rescue people from burning buildings? Dayum.
Anyway. The study makes the point quite well: the significant mortality association was in the most unfit group; even a very modest amount of strength, achievable without much time resistance exercising, had huge impacts on future risk of cardiovascular disease mortality in the next ten years.
I think you fall prey to the TV Trope of firefighters dragging/carrying people of hazards. Just like there is a huge percentage of policemen who never shot a bad guy in the whole career, i guess that there is a huge percentage of firefighters who never had to carry out anybody from a fire in the 30 years of career.
I have to say, speaking as a woman, ten pushups sounds like a lot.
Maybe. But they might have to at any particular run, and even handling a firehose requires some upper body strength. I don’t think it is much to expect at least average fitness, even if my expectation of above average is unrealistic.
Here’s norms. Other sources give similar numbers.
10 or under is considered “very poor” for most age groups in men, okay, only “poor” for those 60+ but the average man over 60 can do ten or more. And “poor” for women @puzzlegal up until older than 40. Yes, women have less upper body strength.
Meanwhile I’ve been considering why resistance training might lose benefits at 150 min/w or more, if it’s true rather than just no additional mortality benefits. I’d WAG that for most going over 150 they are lifting days in a row, split sets, but every day. Split sets let the target muscles have recovery, but it doesn’t let the blood vessels or heart have a recovery period from the pressure overload demands, nor does it allow the stress hormones to come down as fully. My WAG is that there is a difference to full body an hour three times a week with cardio or recovery between, and half an hour split sets alternating six days a week. Just a WAG though.
I know a few firefighters. It’s a tough gig, especially in rural areas where many are volunteers or poorly paid. Given very significant occupational exposures, they sometimes have trouble recruiting the younger blood they need.
Firefighting is a physical job. I have heard some male firefighters complain about physical standards being relaxed in order to accommodate diversity, but cannot say how common or accurate these claims are. As one ages, these requirements also become more difficult to surpass (though are likely modified in some regions) . I read the average age of Canadian rural firemen is in the mid-50s. (Urban firefighters are generally better paid with stronger unions). Since having experienced people is better than shortages, it is possible that these factors explain some of the cohorts in the study.