# Excercise can kill you! ;)



## Elvira (Dec 1, 2011)

Okay, not really. But according to an article from the New York Times (,Good and Bad, the Little Things Add Up in Fitness - NYTimes.com) those who worked out very frequently died sooner than those those who got moderate physical activity for 30 minutes several times a week. Of course, those with sedentary lifestyles died sooner too. 

I find the fact that more isn't always better. To me it makes sense though; you want to keep your body in top shape without wearing it down. The countries with the highest lifespans don't really work out much either; rather, moderate physical activity (like hiking, walking, dancing, etc.) is incorporated into every day.

Personally I never understood marathons because it seems like it's so hard on your body :shocked: According to this article, it's better to take the stairs, do little movements during your breaks, dance while cooking dinner, etc,

Now I feel good about working out only three times a week! I guess I don't have to kill myself in the gym to be healthy. hmm...

what do you think of this article?


----------



## Moshe David Rubenstein (Aug 3, 2012)

Too much of almost anything is bad for you. I read the first paragraph of the article, and got bored. It's lengthily written, and doesn't have much in it that most people don't already know. What was the alternative hypotheses?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Elvira said:


> what do you think of this article?


I think it's bullshit. One study with less than 700 people is not a decent sample size of anything. There's also the basic knowledge that we're all descended from men and women that lived in the wild, hunted animal several hundred pounds heavier and more efficient killers than we are. A life lived in strenuous conditions with serious impacts on the body and they all survived long enough to make a generation to do it all over again. Anyone suggesting that walking is better for you than training for a marathon is fooling themselves.


----------



## angularvelocity (Jun 15, 2009)

android654 said:


> I think it's bullshit. One study with less than 700 people is not a decent sample size of anything. There's also the basic knowledge that we're all descended from men and women that lived in the wild, hunted animal several hundred pounds heavier and more efficient killers than we are. A life lived in strenuous conditions with serious impacts on the body and they all survived long enough to make a generation to do it all over again. Anyone suggesting that walking is better for you than training for a marathon is fooling themselves.


The paragraph you wrote is actually mainly incorrect.

Google 'central limits theorem sample size.' In statistic courses you'll learn that there is not much of a difference between a sample size of 30 and 2,000. In most published articles you come across, you'll notice that studies usually involve a smaller group between 20-40 because of the central limits theorem. One can statistically make a inference for a population on a small sample size and have it be accurate.

And I would recommend walking over running marathons, and in some cases even marathon training when the training bouts get to 15+ miles. Cardiologists also speak of heart problems developing from prolonged excessive bouts of exercise. The idea of using men and women running in the wild is not valid because they typically have short life spans. I will agree that the human body is designed to move and be active at all levels, cardiovascularly, biomechanically, and neurologically, but too much high intensity workouts are detrimental.
If you want the full and detailed version of why it's bad, I can write it out later but I'm on an iPhone right now.

Source: I've been studying these topics for years.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

angularvelocity said:


> The paragraph you wrote is actually mainly incorrect.
> 
> Google 'central limits theorem sample size.' In statistic courses you'll learn that there is not much of a difference between a sample size of 30 and 2,000. In most published articles you come across, you'll notice that studies usually involve a smaller group between 20-40 because of the central limits theorem. One can statistically make a inference for a population on a small sample size and have it be accurate.


This is wholly untrue. There are four things a surveyor or statistician concerns themselves with when conducting a survey: precision, assurance of results, variation in population, and identification of variables. All four of these factors dwindle as your sample size shrinks. For a planet of 7+ billion, 700 people is not sufficient. In fact a sample size of 700 is considered standard with a 0.3 margin of error for a population of 70,000. 

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...mUDz69&sig=AHIEtbRqxWdI8ITSLad1c-WD_gWXgcrG8Q

You need more studies, more variation, more time for observation, in order to claim this as a fact.



> And I would recommend walking over running marathons, and in some cases even marathon training when the training bouts get to 15+ miles. Cardiologists also speak of heart problems developing from prolonged excessive bouts of exercise. The idea of using men and women running in the wild is not valid because they typically have short life spans. I will agree that the human body is designed to move and be active at all levels, cardiovascularly, biomechanically, and neurologically, but too much high intensity workouts are detrimental.
> If you want the full and detailed version of why it's bad, I can write it out later but I'm on an iPhone right now.
> 
> Source: I've been studying these topics for years.


As have I, which is why you should know Cardiomyopathy and conditions like it are the result of improper training cycles and not the training itself. The overwhelming majority of injuries that result from any form of exercise come from improper form or excessive --as to the capabilities of the body-- training cycles.


----------



## Dauntless (Nov 3, 2010)

Thanking thread as I enjoy hearing others perspectives, and research makes me unbearably happy....


----------



## illow (Dec 23, 2012)

Just like too much vitamins are unhealthy...


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

Lmao. It doesn't surprise me to find the NYtimes spewing nonsense pseudoscience as fact. "Those who worked out died sooner", "Those who didn't work out also died sooner". Absolutely brilliant.


----------



## angularvelocity (Jun 15, 2009)

android654 said:


> This is wholly untrue. There are four things a surveyor or statistician concerns themselves with when conducting a survey: precision, assurance of results, variation in population, and identification of variables. All four of these factors dwindle as your sample size shrinks. For a planet of 7+ billion, 700 people is not sufficient. In fact a sample size of 700 is considered standard with a 0.3 margin of error for a population of 70,000.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...mUDz69&sig=AHIEtbRqxWdI8ITSLad1c-WD_gWXgcrG8Q
> 
> ...


I see your point but it's still wrong. To claim anything as fact, you'd have to sample the entire population and measure every person. To be in the ball park accurate, you only need 30-40 subjects. 700 is overkill to do studies a that has too much raw data, costs too much money, and consumes too much time. 

Not sure what your second paragraph is about as the original point was about walking vs marathon running.


----------



## Cosmicsense (Dec 7, 2011)

The benefits from exercise are generally regarded to be seen following a U shape with activity being on the x axis, and benefit being the y. 

I think the deeper truth is that it depends on one's current level of physical adaptation, and genetic potential for those adaptations. The U shape holds true due to there being a large sample which normalizes the variables and constants. 

It seems that the main thing to remember is to stress yourself out, but also take breaks to adapt. You can't compare a novice to an elite athlete. The former would DIE if they tried to keep up with the latter in training.


----------



## Haydn (Sep 20, 2012)

android654 said:


> As have I, which is why you should know Cardiomyopathy and conditions like it are the result of improper training cycles and not the training itself. The overwhelming majority of injuries that result from any form of exercise come from improper form or excessive --as to the capabilities of the body-- training cycles.


What would you consider an improper training cycle?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Haydn said:


> What would you consider an improper training cycle?


Cardiomyopathy is most common among runners and triathletes. An improper training cycle for someone who trains in endurance would have to include: 
-ignoring rest days and recovery weeks
- ignoring ladders of progression (running 15 miles a day every training day with no variation in training styles) 
-moving too far beyond the athletes threshold far beyond what their ability may be at that level (If you can complete a mile in 5 minutes but try for 2, pushing yourself to that limit on a constant basis rather than progressing properly)

There's a lot of contributing factors but those are the quickest that come to mind.


----------



## Haydn (Sep 20, 2012)

android654 said:


> Cardiomyopathy is most common among runners and triathletes. An improper training cycle for someone who trains in endurance would have to include:
> -ignoring rest days and recovery weeks
> - ignoring ladders of progression (running 15 miles a day every training day with no variation in training styles)
> -moving too far beyond the athletes threshold far beyond what their ability may be at that level (If you can complete a mile in 5 minutes but try for 2, pushing yourself to that limit on a constant basis rather than progressing properly)
> ...


Thanks for that.


----------



## Quenby (Jan 31, 2013)

No never. 
Exercise can't kill any person. 
It works to make the body strong and active. 
It not only make our body good shaped but also work well to keep us away from various diseases.


----------



## Quenby (Jan 31, 2013)

Quenby said:


> No never.
> Exercise can't kill any person.
> It works to make the body strong and active.
> It not only make our body good shaped but also work well to keep us away from various diseases.


Any comment?


----------



## Bassmasterzac (Jun 6, 2014)

Yeah, if you have angina silly!

Exercise til I die (hopefully not exercise induced)


----------



## Rusting (Jul 14, 2014)

I read into the research of the "pudgy men" experiment using a control group, a 30-minute aerobic routine and a heavier 60-minute routine, and concluding with the 30-minute group yielding an overall better deal. Interesting I suppose, but it is with notes of speculation and overall no significant insight in itself. One note mentioned that the 30-minute group members generally seemed more inspired (and less fatigued with their moderate workout routine) and thus were more active in their spare time. But since these are men who are working on losing weight because they let themselves go (are only interested in losing weight), we have to consider that point. Moreover, I am assuming they are just running when they describe the aerobic exercise involved. What is really important is working all of your muscle groups, and for power as well as endurance (this means taking interest in lifting heavier). Women virtually lack the testosterone levels necessary to get jacked up (unless they take bodybuilding supplements), and a holistic exercise system really brings meaning to the word "healthy". Healthier lives clearly are better in general, but as noted overdoing anything can be pretty bad. So as these pudgy men, identify your goals and understand your current boundaries. Fat loss and muscle gain make fine goals and can work as one. Fat is lost equally around the whole body so working the upper body also influences fat loss as well as the metabolism and its magic. *On top of it all, it is only healthy to avoid making exercise a stressful endeavor. That would kind of defeat its true purpose.* Patience, commitment and careful planning is not a bad place to start, but there really isn't that much of a need to be rigorous and strict. Listen to the body, and know good pain (alongside the body getting stronger) from bad (breaking your body in unnatural ways; injuries). 



Bassmasterzac said:


> Yeah, if you have angina silly!
> 
> Exercise til I die (hopefully not exercise induced)


Lol, that's the spirit!, and I say this with full sincerity. Glimpsing over the rest of the main article I only found that there is a 2 year difference in life expectancy with whatever study was involved. Exercising of course can be dangerous in various ways (injuries, freak accidents, etc.), but even a 5 year loss from long term physiological decay of whatever sort doesn't intimidate me too much. A life well lived is much more important than a scrapped one even with 2 extra years. Also, this is a bit humorous: “Every single hour of television watched after the age of 25 reduces the viewer’s life expectancy by 21.8 minutes.” I don't care to take this as a reliable guideline, but I will definitely live by it. I really don't like television anyway; Animal Planet looks like it turned to crap. Staring at a computer screen for hours though, that may take a bit of tweaking.


----------



## Killionaire (Oct 13, 2009)

I don't believe in stupid little studies. Who knows who's funding them. Probably Big Pharma, because they're the only ones with a lot of money. Maybe they are funding study results to discourage people from being healthy. They probably are. There's no limit to their evil.


----------

