The site seems sketchy, as the US Food and Drug Administration warned the site to stop making illegal claims, and many claims on the website go against mainstream medicine.
I would ignore the site, it’s just a handy collation of those eight studies so you can actually check them. Most health websites that attempt to synthesize research are pretty bad.
Edit: not sure why comment above this was downvoted? Checking sources is a good habit.
Mayo Clinic recently published proceedings00638-7/pdf) suggesting that 5 hrs/week of vigorous exercise was the upper limit for safe exercise. They didn’t state their methodology for finding studies on the topic, but I don’t see any reason for Mayo Clinic to be biased about it.
They also discussed a meta-analysis00519-9/pdf) that suggested that elite athletes (who presumably exercise a ton) were much healthier than the general population. The proceedings explained that the meta-analysis had many methodological limitations, such as elite athletes being physically gifted, practicing other healthy habits, and having high socioeconomic status.
Oh cool! The estimate of an actual MET level for best longevity is great! It seems reasonable too, 10 is pretty hard to sustain. I would have been suspicious of a lower number. They also note some limited evidence that intermittent vigorous exercise with full days off seems to be better than daily exercise. This matches the current model of vigorous exercise as a eustress, where the recovery is what is important.
WRT the elite athletes, the discussions I’ve seen of reverse causality seem fairly convincing. Those people were going to live longer regardless of their chosen profession, so it’s hard to tease out what specifically the additional benefit of exercise was. (IIRC there was a twin study that looked at pairs with one becoming a pro athlete and the other not.)
Sorry about the broken links. Anyways, IIRC, The Mayo Clinic proceedings only recommend limiting vigorous exercise. Do you think one could still get more health benefits by exercising non-vigorously? i.e. They recommend limiting vigorous exercise to ⇐ ~50 MET/wk (assuming the exercise burns 10 MET/hr). Do you think one would get additional health benefits for exercising moderately for, say, 100 MET/wk?
At some point the stress effects cross the exercise effects in size. That crossing might be slightly different for different people, but for most even 5 hours/wk is a big ask. An additional 100 MET per week seems like it would be pretty disruptive to trying to lead a normal life, hold down a job, and socialize. I think some people become addicted to exercise and do it to a fault.
I’ll try to find the study evidencing increased CVD in long distance runners. I appreciate the response.
This article cites 8 studies on endurance training http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2013/08/23/extreme-endurance-exercise.aspx
No direct link to longevity has been shown IIRC, so take it with a grain of salt.
The site seems sketchy, as the US Food and Drug Administration warned the site to stop making illegal claims, and many claims on the website go against mainstream medicine.
I would ignore the site, it’s just a handy collation of those eight studies so you can actually check them. Most health websites that attempt to synthesize research are pretty bad.
Edit: not sure why comment above this was downvoted? Checking sources is a good habit.
Yeah, and as we all know the FDA is completely infallible.
Mayo Clinic recently published proceedings00638-7/pdf) suggesting that 5 hrs/week of vigorous exercise was the upper limit for safe exercise. They didn’t state their methodology for finding studies on the topic, but I don’t see any reason for Mayo Clinic to be biased about it.
They also discussed a meta-analysis00519-9/pdf) that suggested that elite athletes (who presumably exercise a ton) were much healthier than the general population. The proceedings explained that the meta-analysis had many methodological limitations, such as elite athletes being physically gifted, practicing other healthy habits, and having high socioeconomic status.
What do you think of this all?
Oh cool! The estimate of an actual MET level for best longevity is great! It seems reasonable too, 10 is pretty hard to sustain. I would have been suspicious of a lower number. They also note some limited evidence that intermittent vigorous exercise with full days off seems to be better than daily exercise. This matches the current model of vigorous exercise as a eustress, where the recovery is what is important.
WRT the elite athletes, the discussions I’ve seen of reverse causality seem fairly convincing. Those people were going to live longer regardless of their chosen profession, so it’s hard to tease out what specifically the additional benefit of exercise was. (IIRC there was a twin study that looked at pairs with one becoming a pro athlete and the other not.)
I’m surprised there are that many matching twins floating around.
4/1000 means they’re not that rare.
No, but we aren’t exactly brimming with pro athletes either.
Sorry about the broken links. Anyways, IIRC, The Mayo Clinic proceedings only recommend limiting vigorous exercise. Do you think one could still get more health benefits by exercising non-vigorously? i.e. They recommend limiting vigorous exercise to ⇐ ~50 MET/wk (assuming the exercise burns 10 MET/hr). Do you think one would get additional health benefits for exercising moderately for, say, 100 MET/wk?
At some point the stress effects cross the exercise effects in size. That crossing might be slightly different for different people, but for most even 5 hours/wk is a big ask. An additional 100 MET per week seems like it would be pretty disruptive to trying to lead a normal life, hold down a job, and socialize. I think some people become addicted to exercise and do it to a fault.