Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Is it really that far fetched that those who get more exercise and burn more calories are healthier and live longer?


Speaking for the depraved, I think the obvious questions are how little I _must_ drink, how much I _must_ exercise, etc.

Ideally it would be "uncorrelated" and "none"

Seems unlikely, though


> the obvious questions are [...] how much I _must_ exercise

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-ac...

> Adults aged 18–64 years

> should do at least 150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity [per week]

> or at least 75–150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity [per week]

> should also do muscle-strengthening activities at moderate or greater intensity that involve all major muscle groups on 2 or more days a week

> Replacing sedentary time with physical activity of any intensity (including light intensity) provides health benefits


Less obvious but still interesting: At which point does diminishing returns set in? At some point does one extra hour of exercise yield less than one hour of increased average lifespan, and so not worth the additional effort, for someone that doesn't find exercise to be intrinsically rewarding?


Not at all. The only question is whether number of steps is a valid measure of how much exercise you're getting. Higher step count means people are walking more which means more general activity which is good. However, there are other relevant factors to consider such as walking speed, cardiac frequency, the intensity of the exercise. There are also other ways to exercise which don't involve steps at all. Weight lifting for example.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: