# Exercise can Improve your IQ and make you Smarter!



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't exercise, so this explains a-lot!


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

There is a reason why athletics is part of the traditional liberal arts curriculum and why my alma mater had PE as a requirement for many years (though it has sadly been long since abolished). If your bodily health suffers than your mind will also suffer for it.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Fluctuate said:


> This is something I've been reading about recently... apparently, in addition to raising your BDNF levels, certain kinds of exercise (especially those that involve quick reactions and a high degree of coordination) can actually raise your IQ up to 17 points, although most people see more moderate gains (~3 iq points). The theory is that the brain evolved for high levels of ... physical activity requiring quick reflexes and coordination, so improving those things will improve your overall brain efficiency and IQ.
> 
> Anecdotally, the people I know that exercise regularly seem to improve their fluid intelligence over time.
> 
> Anyway, I wanted to know if any of you have specifically experience that. What kinds of exercises? For how long? How quickly did you see cognitive gains?


Does FPS count?


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

I think it has an effect similar to mindfulness -- enhancement of self-awareness, mind-body connection which allows for greater cognitive processing. 

But let's be honest, IQ is an abstraction that is meant to be a proxy for "intelligence", something that in itself lacks empirical understanding (unlike the findings with mindfulness, which have actually shown changes in brain connectivity, frontal lobe growth etc).

So there's a missing link as far as whether certain physiological changes that alter IQ score are truly "intelligence", or if IQ can be pointing to something else that is indirectly linked to intelligence (like processing ability).


----------



## Fluctuate (Mar 24, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> Does FPS count?


I would say, yeah, it absolutely could. If while you play, you are completely absorbed and in tune with your body, almost like meditation, it would have some effect. But- I wouldn't play it with that in mind. If you reach that state, your brain is being primed for learning whatever you're doing.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Fluctuate said:


> I would say, yeah, it absolutely could. If while you play, you are completely absorbed and in tune with your body, almost like meditation, it would have some effect. But- I wouldn't play it with that in mind. If you reach that state, your brain is being primed for learning whatever you're doing.


I could feel that thing pretty often. Anyway, why you wouldn't do it?


----------



## Fluctuate (Mar 24, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> I could feel that thing pretty often. Anyway, why you wouldn't do it?


There's always been debate about whether or not certain video games can cause people to become violent. Some people think they're fine, no danger. Others think it's always a (very) bad idea for _anyone_ to play violent games, particularly FPS. I happen to think that just because you play games like that doesn't mean that you will, or _want_ to... hurt anyone else. There are so many things that can make people violent... I would think that the person must have a condition that causes lack of empathy (ASPD in any form), and/or ... be feeling desperation. I think if someone's decided to be violent, some video games can teach them exactly how... and because your mind is in such a malleable state, you really are learning how to... well, kill someone? And further- because you _are_ your character, it's easier for you to put yourself in that state of mind.

For someone with anger, control, obsessive compulsive, or impulsive issues, I would recommend other games.


----------



## Fluctuate (Mar 24, 2015)

ninjahitsawall said:


> I think it has an effect similar to mindfulness -- enhancement of self-awareness, mind-body connection which allows for greater cognitive processing.
> 
> But let's be honest, IQ is an abstraction that is meant to be a proxy for "intelligence", something that in itself lacks empirical understanding (unlike the findings with mindfulness, which have actually shown changes in brain connectivity, frontal lobe growth etc).
> 
> So there's a missing link as far as whether certain physiological changes that alter IQ score are truly "intelligence", or if IQ can be pointing to something else that is indirectly linked to intelligence (like processing ability).


Well... just because we can't pinpoint exactly where intelligence is doesn't mean it... isn't there? And ... haven't they found that intelligence is how much frontal lobe- gray matter, and how well connected it is, pretty much sums up intelligence? I had someone show me on an MRI once how you could tell someone's likely IQ/intelligence.

I think IQ and processing ability are the same :tongue:


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Fluctuate said:


> There's always been debate about whether or not certain video games can cause people to become violent. Some people think they're fine, no danger. Others think it's always a (very) bad idea for _anyone_ to play violent games, particularly FPS. I happen to think that just because you play games like that doesn't mean that you will, or _want_ to... hurt anyone else. There are so many things that can make people violent... I would think that the person must have a condition that causes lack of empathy (ASPD in any form), and/or ... be feeling desperation. I think if someone's decided to be violent, some video games can teach them exactly how... and because your mind is in such a malleable state, you really are learning how to... well, kill someone? And further- because you _are_ your character, it's easier for you to put yourself in that state of mind.
> 
> For someone with anger, control, obsessive compulsive, or impulsive issues, I would recommend other games.


Well I only learned to move mouse faster and more accurately. I was talking about fast pace FPS (I had that into my head), where you have no time to think, you just go and do, that's it and nothing more. Call of Duty is slow imo. UT2004 is where shit gets real. I don't think about ethical part at all. It works as reaction and goal reaching trainer to me. I'm only 17 now. Plus my parents let me play 18+ games at age 5. I don't really have negative effects from that. Nowadays, there is severe lack of really good FPS games. Too many of them are just way too violent for no reason. They are very boring to me.

I have read research, that FPS may increase decision making speed and could enhance vision and speed up color recognition. So maybe those games can improve something.


----------



## Fluctuate (Mar 24, 2015)

The red spirit said:


> Well I only learned to move mouse faster and more accurately. I was talking about fast pace FPS (I had that into my head), where you have no time to think, you just go and do, that's it and nothing more. Call of Duty is slow imo. UT2004 is where shit gets real. I don't think about ethical part at all. It works as reaction and goal reaching trainer to me. I'm only 17 now. Plus my parents let me play 18+ games at age 5. I don't really have negative effects from that. Nowadays, there is severe lack of really good FPS games. Too many of them are just way too violent for no reason. They are very boring to me.
> 
> I have read research, that FPS may increase decision making speed and could enhance vision and speed up color recognition. So maybe those games can improve something.


For sure. I wasn't saying so much that FPS won't have some pretty positive effects on your ability, just that it could make you more quick to use violence. Emphasis on the _could._ 

I'm sure you're fine.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Fluctuate said:


> Well... just because we can't pinpoint exactly where intelligence is doesn't mean it... isn't there? And ... haven't they found that intelligence is how much frontal lobe- gray matter, and how well connected it is, pretty much sums up intelligence? I had someone show me on an MRI once how you could tell someone's likely IQ/intelligence.
> 
> I think IQ and processing ability are the same :tongue:


https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientists-can-now-predict-intelligence-brain-activity/

What's weird about correlating the two is that IQ has been found to be generally fixed throughout life (with some slight decreases with age). But it's also possible to make parts of the brain more well-connected (such as what I mentioned about mindfulness, and what has been demonstrated with exercise). So if both brain activity and IQ correlate with intelligence, how malleable is the intelligence level of any given individual? And if brain activity that truly reflects intelligence is malleable, then why does IQ seem not to change much throughout life?


----------



## Fluctuate (Mar 24, 2015)

ninjahitsawall said:


> https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientists-can-now-predict-intelligence-brain-activity/
> 
> What's weird about correlating the two is that IQ has been found to be generally fixed throughout life (with some slight decreases with age). But it's also possible to make parts of the brain more well-connected (such as what I mentioned about mindfulness, and what has been demonstrated with exercise). So if both brain activity and IQ correlate with intelligence, how malleable is the intelligence level of any given individual? And if brain activity that truly reflects intelligence is malleable, then why does IQ seem not to change much throughout life?


It's interesting, isn't it? There are clearly ways that people improve both their working memory (linked to IQ, but not quite the same) and abstract thought, but most people have never heard of someone's IQ permanently increasing. Personally, I think that just as neurons can be made unhealthy/unfit, they can be made more healthy/fit. So... I DO think that intelligence is malleable- but maybe it's dependent on something besides the things we've talked about here- like creativity. Maybe... to actually permanently raise IQ- you'd have to be improving cognitive processing speed, working memory, _and_ insight/creativity.

There was another poster who made a good point. Neurons only store information. Even if your ability for abstract thought is increasing steadily, if you do not _use_ those neurons/pathways, you gain no new insight. And I think high IQ, and the ability that comes with it- depends on you having those insights. It's cumulative. So, you're gaining new ability for understanding- but if you are not actually thinking about anything in a different way, like highly intelligent people do, because they were born that way and it came naturally to them, rather than being a new ability - those neurons and glial cells are not being used, and eventually they're pruned. I think, in this way, IQ is also kind of like a personality trait. If you ignore part of your personality- it doesn't develop. It stagnates, and maybe eventually it goes away almost completely.

Maybe those pathways are created in childhood. Personality is set by age 6, for the most part... and there's no real difference between your personality and the brain pathways you use the most. Maybe there is some kind of connection that's unique among highly intelligent people's brains.

... But I doubt that's true for the vast majority of people. I think really only savants have significantly distinct brains. I could be wrong.

EDIT: you know, that's a great article. ... haha...


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Fluctuate said:


> ... and there's no real difference between your personality and the brain pathways you use the most.


Wait, are there actually findings suggesting that? 

I'm curious because I actually considered going into neuroscience at one point, and follow a lot of this stuff, but I haven't heard that being suggested by scientists. 
...they tend to stay away from personality though as a concept, lol.



> ... But I doubt that's true for the vast majority of people. I think really only savants have significantly distinct brains. I could be wrong.


Well... what is a savant, really? 

Einstein's brain turned out to be "distinct" too. But I think "savant" is a term more associated with autism rather than genius abilities. 

I wonder with all these findings about the brain, where people would fit into the criticism that IQ tests only qualify a certain type of person as "intelligent", and there are many types of intelligent. For example if there is an actor or other public figure who is known to be intelligent. Where would they fit into this? I think there is a distinction people make between different types of intelligence so I wonder why that'd be the case if it only comes down to a few factors.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

I've been off and on exercise for years and I notice a huge difference in many areas of my life. The biggest change is simply time perception. Exercise reduces the time it takes to make decisions... I would relate it to having a high speed computer. What do you think is a better computer, one that calculates fast or one that calculates slow? That's IQ. However there is a distinct benefit to calculating slower that is a sign of higher intelligence - the ability to entertain multiple perceptions at once. Thinking from multiple angles gives increased likelihood of correct decision making and overrides the false confidence that comes from probability training. 

Think of an elephant versus a monkey - who has higher IQ? The monkey is faster but the elephant is more open minded. You can see monkeys doing things like jumping from tree to tree, trading bananas for sex, and making complex decisions incredibly fast. But you can see elephants using teamwork, remembering the dead, and experiencing complex emotion. 

Now think of a human who can be both the monkey and the elephant... is it smarter to be one over the other? Is it smarter to be both? To be the elephant chess player or be the monkey mixed martial arts fighter? To be the studious scholar or be the disciplined adventurer? 

And LOL at the idea that making scientific discoveries is a thing people with high IQ do. Science has an incredible lack of stimulation for the people with high IQ. The scientific method is the most basic form of data acquisition that exists. People with higher IQ need more stimulation.


----------



## Eefje (May 8, 2017)

> The theory is that the brain evolved for high levels of ... physical activity requiring quick reflexes and coordination, so improving those things will improve your overall brain efficiency and IQ.


I'm not sure about this. Where is your source? Or is it just something you picked up? 

-----

I exercise quite a lot (not at this moment, however, I'm very sedentary during finals) and what I experience are following benefits:
- better overall focus
- more drive to finish things and start things
- more stamina to do things
- better sleep -> better mental flexibility the following day

And that's it. 
My hunches are telling me that your IQ won't benefit but more like your 'usage' of it - like the drive to finish things + mind flexibility = more intense usage. But this is just a hunch, and that is also not the reason why I exercise... 


* *






That's kinda it. The exercises I do are:
- 3x fitness a week. This consists of 2/3d cardio and 1/3d strength training.
- I run long distance in the weekend (12-16 km, depends on my mood  sometimes I keep it at only 8 km)
- Skiing during winter
- kitesurfing during summer, in weekends

My fitness is very healthy, the GP even complimented me


----------



## cooldudez (Jun 13, 2017)

gosh no wonder I'm so stupid ;-;


----------



## Kittens Are Awesome (Jun 11, 2017)

ninjahitsawall said:


> https://www.wired.com/2015/10/scientists-can-now-predict-intelligence-brain-activity/
> 
> What's weird about correlating the two is that IQ has been found to be generally fixed throughout life (with some slight decreases with age). But it's also possible to make parts of the brain more well-connected (such as what I mentioned about mindfulness, and what has been demonstrated with exercise). So if both brain activity and IQ correlate with intelligence, how malleable is the intelligence level of any given individual? And if brain activity that truly reflects intelligence is malleable, then why does IQ seem not to change much throughout life?


Because IQ is a bad measure of intelligence and definitely a bad measure of brain activity.

For example, one man had a severe concussion on the left side of his head, so the right side of his brain got damaged, and the neurons from the right side of the brain got transferred to the left, and he became a super mathematical genius. He got his degree, and expands on his mathematical career even further. He sees the world in shapes and numbers. It is fascinating.

Another man got hit on the right side of his head so the left side of his brain got damaged, so the opposite happened to his neurons, and he woke up one day, and started seeing a lot of musical notes and got the urge to play them on the piano, that has collected dust over the years, and now he is a musical genius! 

This is called Savant syndrome, where you are an expert in something, due to there being a lot of neurons already present in one part of your brain. This is seen a lot in autism, and in other cases of head injury.

So you see, your interests can change a lot and in these cases drastically, which means that you will want to practice a skill which means that you will get better at it, and perhaps even become an expert, like these two.

I believe that you can learn anything you want, and in these two cases, the musician will score lower on the IQ test and the mathematician will score higher. So the IQ test is really biased, and I would not rely on it.


----------



## Fluctuate (Mar 24, 2015)

* *







ninjahitsawall said:


> Wait, are there actually findings suggesting that?


This isn't the article I wanted to link, but it's going to take me a while to find the other one.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...ientists-discover-keys-individual-personality
This is another one.... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170126082519.htm

And... think about it. It's obvious. Every personality trait we've ever studied has tended to be longstanding and innate. The genetics of a person who is creative and extroverted are different from an introverted, logical person's- and these genetics would all be expressed in the brain. Maybe there would be hormones involved too; isn't low testosterone associated with difficulty making decisions and learning ability? 
* *




Testosterone may improve mental function - Harvard Health


 The fact that extroverts tend to stay extroverts, intuitives tend to stay intuitives... even the OCEAN categories, besides conscientiousness, which is not exactly a personality trait as much as a behavior, suggests that it is all genetic/epigenetic. 

There is research showing how upbringing can affect to what extent your genetic personality/character traits manifest. Eg- a introverted person can be made more or less introverted depending on circumstances in which they're raised, but they will always be introverted. (and ofc it's important to recognize introversion is a spectrum. I think it was Jung who said any man completely introverted or extroverted would be insane, haha!) But the theory is that biology provides the spectrum possible for a given personality trait + range for behaviors, and environment determines where you fall. If you don't have the genes for... say, conscientiousness, maybe you might find it nearly impossible to stay consistently organized, arrive on time, maintain your weight, etc. 



> I'm curious because I actually considered going into neuroscience at one point, and follow a lot of this stuff, but I haven't heard that being suggested by scientists.
> *...they tend to stay away from personality though as a concept, lol.*


Haha, yeah.  It's because they can't explain it. Also, I don't think... people like the idea that who we are could be so heavily influenced by something out of our control... I guess the fact that Thinking, Fast and Slow had to be written, and has had such an impact/is so well known is a good example of that..



> Well... what is a savant, really?
> 
> Einstein's brain turned out to be "distinct" too. But I think "savant" is a term more associated with autism rather than genius abilities.


Good point. There was a study done on taxi drivers which found that they actually have greater than average hippocampal volume. I'm 99% sure that all intellectual abilities, ofc, and personality traits, as much as they are not influenced by hormones, can be found in the brain.

Savant, you're right, is more associated with autism than genius abilities- which is ... I think, neither good nor factual. Autism so fundamentally rewires the brain so early on, I would bet that everyone with the trait would also have genius abilities. You could easily argue that maybe only some abilities are classically recognized. If someone learns to play the piano by ear at age 4-people notice... otoh, if someone can remember the exact organization of the sewing supplies at Michael's after one exposure, the ability is the same, but it's less overtly useful. I realize this is only an anecdote... but I met an autistic man, IQ about... 70, maybe? who could tell when someone he knew was entering a room by _his footsteps alone._ He's not recognized as a savant, but if that is not a genius ability, I don't know what is. He would be the best security guard, or a great an escort to someone blind.



> I wonder with all these findings about the brain, where people would fit into the criticism that IQ tests only qualify a certain type of person as "intelligent", and there are many types of intelligent. For example if there is an actor or other public figure who is known to be intelligent. Where would they fit into this? I think there is a distinction people make between different types of intelligence so I wonder why that'd be the case if it only comes down to a few factors.


Even with all the criticism it gets, I don't think we should necessarily disregard the idea that our current IQ tests are fine/useful in their own way, and measure exactly what they are supposed to measure- the classic idea of intelligence is the ease with which you 1) gather new information, 2) retain that information, and 3) manipulate it- eg, come up with new insights. My personal opinion is that everyone contributes something worthwhile, regardless of IQ, because our abilities are SO diverse, and they are all necessary. We need people who are skilled at and enjoy abstract thought, just as much as.. well? we need people who do_ not._

I agree that there are certain kinds of intelligence that are not at all commonly measured on IQ tests. If you have a person who is able to observe another's emotional states, before the person themselves even knows what they are feeling; detect someone's intent, even while it's well-masked to someone else, or sense someone else's physical/emotional needs before the other person does, and well before anyone else is able to, you would say that person has a higher interpersonal IQ. That's not something you can observe on an IQ test, afaik, but that person has a higher ability/intelligence.

As far as actors/celebs, etc... I would wager that these people would be classically intelligent and _able_ to match another on intellectual ability, -but they would have different interests. So their achievement would be of a different kind.

You've heard of Marilyn Vos Savant? Some people think her life wasn't as worthwhile as it could have been- but I think her contribution/achievement was just as necessary/good. Maybe if you stuck her in a lab, or made her a nonfiction writer, she would have been miserable and had a shorter life span. I have a feeling most people would disagree with me.

_I think there is a distinction people make between different types of intelligence so I wonder why that'd be the case if it only comes down to a few factors._
General intelligence is a valid concept... but multiple intelligences is valid as well. 


 

This is too long; sorry about that. Let me organize/rephrase when I know what I want to say.


----------



## Fluctuate (Mar 24, 2015)

Eefje said:


> I'm not sure about this. Where is your source? Or is it just something you picked up?


Some guy with an IQ ~140? answered a question about it on Quora. Quite literally. It made sense; I thought about it; I did some actual research and found things like this: Regular exercise changes the brain to improve memory, thinking skills - Harvard Health Blog - Harvard Health Publications



> -----
> 
> I exercise quite a lot (not at this moment, however, I'm very sedentary during finals) and what I experience are following benefits:
> - better overall focus
> ...



* *






I've exercised consistently my entire life, and for the most part, the effects I notice are the same as yours. otoh... I met someone who started exercising regularly after _not_ exercising for awhile, and she ... well, she just seemed _more intelligent._ Like something was physically happening to her brain; her memory was getting better, she was concentrating more consistently, she was picking things up that _other_ people used to be the first to notice.

By his theory, it would depend on the type of exercise- and as I _think_ I've mentioned- it depends on how much you're stretching working memory + inducing meditation, as ninjahitsawall mentioned. There are certain exercises that will improve your coordination moreso than others... I definitely think your theory would be part of it, but I also think there could be other benefits to certain exercises that would have an even greater effect.



> That's kinda it. The exercises I do are:
> - 3x fitness a week. This consists of 2/3d cardio and 1/3d strength training.
> - I run long distance in the weekend (12-16 km, depends on my mood  sometimes I keep it at only 8 km)
> - Skiing during winter
> ...





This is pretty close to what I was hoping people would post, although it doesn't seem like anyone here is doing the exercise I had in mind. Thanks. :happy:


----------



## Eefje (May 8, 2017)

Fluctuate said:


> Some guy with an IQ ~140? answered a question about it on Quora. Quite literally. It made sense; I thought about it; I did some actual research and found things like this: Regular exercise changes the brain to improve memory, thinking skills - Harvard Health Blog - Harvard Health Publications
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I forgot to answer the part about how fast my cognitive abilities improved,though :tongue:

I can't really answer this. I've always been a pretty keen and smart girl, so I've never done anything that could have been below my level of intelligence. I'm doing uni now, and I don't really feel any more requirement or anything, so if it has improved, I wouldn't know how fast. I think it's more a gradual process and that it depends on how consistent you are with exercise roud:

And you're welcome!

Edit: @Fluctuate
Sorry my heads a mess and I can't seem to answer on everything that I wanted to answer in one take lol 

I wanted to add that I've been skiing since I literally could stand up. Skiing is known to require a lot of coordination (and I can only agree). I've nearly seen every possible way of skiing and it takes some coordination and determination to do the techniques right. 
I also tend to meditate during skiing,especially when I am skiing alone and listening to music. I've always considered this my 'holy pleasure' and something that really helps my mind and body put at ease. 

This in combination with the fact that I studied a rather 'difficult' degree in middle school, would be a plausible example of your theory. Although I do have to add that my brother is as good with maths/science as me and he doesn't do any exercise. Intelligence is for most part still just genes. The only difference between him and me is that I probably have more determination and creativity to end things. But this might also be traits that you learn during the years you study at uni - and he is only 15 so yeah... Maybe it is not worth comparing.


----------

