I think the main flaw in his argument comes from his belief that more exercise always = better health / increased longevity.
The evidence on the other hand indicates that health benefits come from a very modest amount of exercise. Daily waking plus maybe a short session of resistance training once a week.
As you start to increase volume and intensity, health and longevity benefits not only tail off, but can actually start to decline. (Especially if you’re doing flic flacs and land on your head).
I personally enjoy strenuous physical activity, and being strong and athletic. I therefore do more than the minimum required for health.
If people choose not to exercise though, who’s to say that’s not the right choice for them? Doing something you hate on a daily basis your entire life in order to make it longer might not be the most rational choice.
There’s a belief that “stick at it and you’ll learn to live it, I did and so do all my gym buddies”. This overlooks the possibility of survivorship bias though.
Part of my brain reads this list as “Broken bones, busted knees, torn ankle ligaments, burst spinal and knee cushions.” I can associate many of my forays into fitness with a particular chronic injury. Basketball, ankle doesn’t work right anymore. Taekwondo, toes on right foot no longer support my weight.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who don’t accrue all these injuries when they exercise. A cursory Googling suggests that there are some important genetic factors relating to connective tissue strength/integrity and/or recovery speed.
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve chosen to simply focus on keeping my resting heart rate solidly into what is considered a healthy zone. This is one of those easily measurable knobs that can be intervened upon from a number of directions. If somebody suggested that I need to pack on muscle to be healthier, I think I could argue pretty persuasively that they are wrong.
Every year for the past 4 I have started a new, less ambitious exercise routine. I have stopped each because I got out of the habit after 3-6 months. I got out of the habit because I injured myself exercising and spent some weeks recovering. I’m not claiming this is inevitable or that I’m doing everything right and injuring myself regardless, but I am claiming that it’s not as simple (for some people?) as “once you get past your nerd-distaste, if you’re okay with doing uncomfortable things, it’s smooth sailing”.
Years ago, when I was buying life insurance, one of the questions was whether I do regular/professional sport (sorry, I forgot the exact words). So afterwards I asked whether doing such sport would be good or bad, from the perspective of insurance. The agent told me that it increases the cost of insurance. I don’t remember exactly whether it literally implied shorter expected lifespan, or just more likely permanent accidents, which were also covered by that specific insurance.
That was the first time in my life when I heard something negative about sport from the perspective of health.
The second (and the last) time, when I discussed with a doctor what kind of sport would be best (efficient, but also safe) if I want to lose some weight. The doctor was like: “well, you could do this… but that can damage your joints, so perhaps you should rather do this… wait, that can also damage your joints, so perhaps...” and the final conclusion was that the only sport that does not damage joints is swimming. Now of course, for an overweight person, the strain on joints is greater, but the risk exists for everyone.
On the other hand, in health, trade-offs seem quite common; few things are unambiguously good. For example, my dentist, after checking my teeth, asked me whether I grit my teeth a lot. When I said no, she was like: “well, this is weird… unless you perhaps eat a lot of fresh vegetables”. I said of course I do, that is the healthy thing to do, aren ’t we all supposed to do that? Apparently, it’s not optimal for your teeth. (And apparently less frequent than gritting one’s teeth… which is a scary thought.)
I personally like to distinguish between activity, training and exercise.
Exercise being movement done purely for health. It should be safe and effective.
Activity is movement done for another reason. Could be practical (cycling to work), or recreational (playing sport). Typically has similar effects to exercise, but comes with injury risks.
Training is practicing specific movements to get better at a certain activity.
People tend to confuse all of these, unsurprisingly, and end up doing things like crossfit “because exercise is good for you”...
People also tend to have strong beliefs about which is “best”. Really it’s a matter of personal preference/values.
I think the main flaw in his argument comes from his belief that more exercise always = better health / increased longevity.
The evidence on the other hand indicates that health benefits come from a very modest amount of exercise. Daily waking plus maybe a short session of resistance training once a week.
As you start to increase volume and intensity, health and longevity benefits not only tail off, but can actually start to decline. (Especially if you’re doing flic flacs and land on your head).
I personally enjoy strenuous physical activity, and being strong and athletic. I therefore do more than the minimum required for health.
If people choose not to exercise though, who’s to say that’s not the right choice for them? Doing something you hate on a daily basis your entire life in order to make it longer might not be the most rational choice.
There’s a belief that “stick at it and you’ll learn to live it, I did and so do all my gym buddies”. This overlooks the possibility of survivorship bias though.
This struck me as well.
Part of my brain reads this list as “Broken bones, busted knees, torn ankle ligaments, burst spinal and knee cushions.” I can associate many of my forays into fitness with a particular chronic injury. Basketball, ankle doesn’t work right anymore. Taekwondo, toes on right foot no longer support my weight.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who don’t accrue all these injuries when they exercise. A cursory Googling suggests that there are some important genetic factors relating to connective tissue strength/integrity and/or recovery speed.
As I’ve gotten older, I’ve chosen to simply focus on keeping my resting heart rate solidly into what is considered a healthy zone. This is one of those easily measurable knobs that can be intervened upon from a number of directions. If somebody suggested that I need to pack on muscle to be healthier, I think I could argue pretty persuasively that they are wrong.
Every year for the past 4 I have started a new, less ambitious exercise routine. I have stopped each because I got out of the habit after 3-6 months. I got out of the habit because I injured myself exercising and spent some weeks recovering. I’m not claiming this is inevitable or that I’m doing everything right and injuring myself regardless, but I am claiming that it’s not as simple (for some people?) as “once you get past your nerd-distaste, if you’re okay with doing uncomfortable things, it’s smooth sailing”.
Years ago, when I was buying life insurance, one of the questions was whether I do regular/professional sport (sorry, I forgot the exact words). So afterwards I asked whether doing such sport would be good or bad, from the perspective of insurance. The agent told me that it increases the cost of insurance. I don’t remember exactly whether it literally implied shorter expected lifespan, or just more likely permanent accidents, which were also covered by that specific insurance.
That was the first time in my life when I heard something negative about sport from the perspective of health.
The second (and the last) time, when I discussed with a doctor what kind of sport would be best (efficient, but also safe) if I want to lose some weight. The doctor was like: “well, you could do this… but that can damage your joints, so perhaps you should rather do this… wait, that can also damage your joints, so perhaps...” and the final conclusion was that the only sport that does not damage joints is swimming. Now of course, for an overweight person, the strain on joints is greater, but the risk exists for everyone.
On the other hand, in health, trade-offs seem quite common; few things are unambiguously good. For example, my dentist, after checking my teeth, asked me whether I grit my teeth a lot. When I said no, she was like: “well, this is weird… unless you perhaps eat a lot of fresh vegetables”. I said of course I do, that is the healthy thing to do, aren ’t we all supposed to do that? Apparently, it’s not optimal for your teeth. (And apparently less frequent than gritting one’s teeth… which is a scary thought.)
I personally like to distinguish between activity, training and exercise.
Exercise being movement done purely for health. It should be safe and effective.
Activity is movement done for another reason. Could be practical (cycling to work), or recreational (playing sport). Typically has similar effects to exercise, but comes with injury risks.
Training is practicing specific movements to get better at a certain activity.
People tend to confuse all of these, unsurprisingly, and end up doing things like crossfit “because exercise is good for you”...
People also tend to have strong beliefs about which is “best”. Really it’s a matter of personal preference/values.
Logan prefers the pronoun “they” over “he”, FYI.
Ah sorry. There was no reference to that in this post so had no idea.