12 replies to this topic

[Sillewater]

A conflict between exercise and longevity control?

[spp]

A conflict between exercise and longevity control?

Well, according to my understanding, there are actually two pathways to building/maintaining muscle. The most well known is the effect of the anabolic hormone insulin, which is used by body builders when loading up on carbs immediately after a workout. The second is the Human Growth Hormone/Insulin Like Growth Factor (HGH/IGF) pathway, which is used by more paleo type body builders when they exercise fasted and don't eat anything for an hour or two after exercise. It is unclear that the mTOR pathway is affected equally by bother hormones, although both insulin and IGF receptors are present in both (The Yin and Yang of Muscle Atrophy). However, in some instances, such as glycogen production, insulin seems to be much more rapamycin dependent. (Differential Signaling of Insulin and IGF-1 Receptors...), so there are metabolic differences between the two pathways. In addition, IGF appears to have life extension properties for elderly men (Hormone May Hold Key To Helping Elderly Men Live Longer), so the view that insulin is a pro-aging hormone, while IGF may not be is still viable IMO.

[tunt01]

crossfit + functional fitness > bodybuilding/bulking

[e Volution]

I'm pretty new to this longevity thing but I know personally whenever I think about exercise and its benefits I am thinking about healthspan not lifespan (although im still having trouble with the distinction). In that respect is this article less relevant?

So it looks like DukeNukem's minimalist view on exercise could be the best one for longevity (I believe he said it accounts for around 10% with the other 90% from diet/supplements) . My understanding is this is a small amount of exercise for exercise sake (typically High-Intensity), and all the rest coming from social/fun activities tennis, mountain biking, etc (which come with their own longevity benefits from social connections).

It certainly looks like the old exercise & fitness = health idea is being thrown out the window. I mean the general thoughts on exercise is the actual exercise itself is beneficial. Whereas for myself I know I am starting to view exercise as a form of hormesis, where the benefits come afterwards as your body repairs the damage plus some. The actual exercise itself is bad in that its just damage and inflammation, so I think we really need to investigate where the dose response curve is (for the already low-risk low-inflammation average ImmInst member) for exercise. My gut feeling is there are probably many on this forum engaging in a potentially net-negative exercise regime.

[niner]

I wasn't aware that protein turnover happened to this extent: (from The Yin and Yang of Muscle Atrophy)

The dynamic nature of muscle is evident when one considers that healthy adults turn over 3.5–4.5 g of protein/kg·d—stated another way, an average individual synthesizes and degrades approximately 1.0–1.5 kg protein per day (1). Therefore, a small, sustained change in either synthesis or degradation can have a significant impact on muscle mass if not countered by an offsetting change in the reciprocal process.

[eason]

I wasn't aware that protein turnover happened to this extent: (from The Yin and Yang of Muscle Atrophy)

The dynamic nature of muscle is evident when one considers that healthy adults turn over 3.5–4.5 g of protein/kg·d—stated another way, an average individual synthesizes and degrades approximately 1.0–1.5 kg protein per day (1). Therefore, a small, sustained change in either synthesis or degradation can have a significant impact on muscle mass if not countered by an offsetting change in the reciprocal process.

That's indeed a lot, but at 4g/kg*d it seems that their calculations are off. For a 70kg person, that's 280g.

[niner]

I wasn't aware that protein turnover happened to this extent: (from The Yin and Yang of Muscle Atrophy)

The dynamic nature of muscle is evident when one considers that healthy adults turn over 3.5–4.5 g of protein/kg·d—stated another way, an average individual synthesizes and degrades approximately 1.0–1.5 kg protein per day (1). Therefore, a small, sustained change in either synthesis or degradation can have a significant impact on muscle mass if not countered by an offsetting change in the reciprocal process.

That's indeed a lot, but at 4g/kg*d it seems that their calculations are off. For a 70kg person, that's 280g.

I can't believe I missed that... You know, you'd think that truly idiotic errors wouldn't be found in the first paragraph of a paper... That's the second major mistake in a paper I've come across this week. Gotta stay on your toes, eh? 280 g/d is a lot more reasonable. If you change kg to pounds in both terms, you come pretty close to 1-1.5. Another unit error? (The last egregious error appears to have been caused by using mM when they meant mg/dL.) Are authors getting stupider?

[edward]

What this article is hinting at is the fact is the big difference between the effects of resistance training and "aerobic" exercise at the molecular level.(note the following is greatly simplified but might focus the discussion) Aerobic exercise and exercise mimetics target AMPK and PPAR delta (basically mimicking aerobic exercise only) yielding a more efficient fat burning machine with slower twitch muscle fibers and above all greater efficiency under much less than maximal loads for long periods of time. Intuitively, a body conditioned with aerobic exercise yielding a more efficient system with smaller fat sipping muscles is more conducive to longevity than one overloaded with energy hungry high performance fast twitch muscles that turn over with repeated anerobic stress.

I remember reading studies showing aerobic activity had disease preventing properties pretty much across the board but anaerobic exercise only protected against a smaller number of conditions.

Personally I think that discussion based on the molecular consequences of activating only a few "systems" are interesting but do not take into account the organism at the macro level and how complex the interaction is in higher mammals between muscle mass, cardiovascular fitness, insulin resistance, antioxidant systems upregulation, intra and extra celluar junk accumulation and elimination..... Basically its all a lot more complicated than aerobic exercise inhibits TOR and anerobic resistance training activates TOR.

What would be interesting would be to compare aging among say sprinters vs. long distance runners or just do some rat studies where our furry friends group 1 do the equivalent of a free weight routine a few times a week and perhaps a HIT session and group 2 does the rat equivalent of marathon training and group 3 (the lucky happy rats) get to sit on their furry butts, chill and chow down on labchow#57 from the comfort of their exercise equipment free cages.

Till then I am going to continue to do HIT training a couple times a week, weights a couple times a week and the every once and awhile 45 min run, elliptical or bike ride. HIT plus weights gets one in amazing shape easily and for me at least increases my VO2 max where as long and slow cardio makes me feel good mentally but doesnt improve my fitness much.

[tunt01]

great post edward

[Logan]

I think the benefits of exercise and the types of exercise that benefit may vary from person to person.

I have to believe that HIIT or some other fairly short but intense exercise has health benefits for most people.

I don't agree with Duke's minimalist approach to exercise. Interval training has been shown to be the best way to strengthen the heart and increase lung capacity. How this could be bad for longevity I have no idea. I also can't see how a regular weight training regimen 2 to 3 days a week would be bad for longevity.

If someone could give me a good argument against regular weight training and interval sprint training I would like to hear it.

Personally, I need to work out as it is one of the only things that truly relieves my anxiety. I also actually crave food less and eat less food when I am exercising regularly. I've always had a lot of natural stamina and I believe I was built in a way that my body needs the exercise I give it. Like I said, everyone is different and some may need exercise or benefit from exercise more than others for whatever reason.

[bacopa]

I think the benefits of exercise and the types of exercise that benefit may vary from person to person.

I have to believe that HIIT or some other fairly short but intense exercise has health benefits for most people.

I don't agree with Duke's minimalist approach to exercise. Interval training has been shown to be the best way to strengthen the heart and increase lung capacity. How this could be bad for longevity I have no idea. I also can't see how a regular weight training regimen 2 to 3 days a week would be bad for longevity.

If someone could give me a good argument against regular weight training and interval sprint training I would like to hear it.

Personally, I need to work out as it is one of the only things that truly relieves my anxiety. I also actually crave food less and eat less food when I am exercising regularly. I've always had a lot of natural stamina and I believe I was built in a way that my body needs the exercise I give it. Like I said, everyone is different and some may need exercise or benefit from exercise more than others for whatever reason.

dude, that was eloquently put! Exercise benefits everyone...

[werry111]

A conflict between exercise and longevity control?

I like this most! I think this question is most used question for all and also for that who going to gym daily. i am using protein powder also with that exercise. Is it good for me ?

[Logan]

Let's not forget about the effect exercise has on neurogenesis. I bet intense exercise is even more beneficial for neurogenesis than more moderate exercise.