• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

The Right Dose of Exercise For a Longer Life: Latest JAMA Report

mortality

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 motorcitykid

  • Guest
  • 276 posts
  • 71
  • Location:New York

Posted 21 June 2015 - 04:09 PM


Both JAMA paper links are included in the NY Times article:

 

http://well.blogs.ny...p_1=156557&_r=0

 

 


  • like x 1

#2 malbecman

  • Guest
  • 733 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Sunny CA

Posted 22 June 2015 - 09:52 PM

 Interesting post, thanks.   I've always wondered where the "sweet spot" was in terms of exercise amount....



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for EXERCISE to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 motorcitykid

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 276 posts
  • 71
  • Location:New York

Posted 22 June 2015 - 11:32 PM

 Interesting post, thanks.   I've always wondered where the "sweet spot" was in terms of exercise amount....

 

You're welcome malbecman.



#4 ta5

  • Guest
  • 952 posts
  • 324
  • Location: 

Posted 28 June 2015 - 01:16 AM

Interesting stuff. Honestly, I'm surprised that the higher levels of exercise were not bad.

 

For those you don't want to click the link, or if the link goes away some day, here's the meat:

 

Then they compared 14 years’ worth of death records for the group.

 

They found that, unsurprisingly, the people who did not exercise at all were at the highest risk of early death.

 

But those who exercised a little, not meeting the recommendations but doing something, lowered their risk of premature death by 20 percent.

 

Those who met the guidelines precisely, completing 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise, enjoyed greater longevity benefits and 31 percent less risk of dying during the 14-year period compared with those who never exercised.

 

The sweet spot for exercise benefits, however, came among those who tripled the recommended level of exercise, working out moderately, mostly by walking, for 450 minutes per week, or a little more than an hour per day. Those people were 39 percent less likely to die prematurely than people who never exercised.

 

At that point, the benefits plateaued, the researchers found, but they never significantly declined. Those few individuals engaging in 10 times or more the recommended exercise dose gained about the same reduction in mortality risk as people who simply met the guidelines. They did not gain significantly more health bang for all of those additional hours spent sweating. But they also did not increase their risk of dying young.

 

The other new study of exercise and mortality reached a somewhat similar conclusion about intensity. While a few recent studies have intimated that frequent, strenuous exercise might contribute to early mortality, the new study found the reverse.

 

 

Anyone who is physically capable of activity should try to “reach at least 150 minutes of physical activity per week and have around 20 to 30 minutes of that be vigorous activity,” says Klaus Gebel, a senior research fellow at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia, who led the second study. And a larger dose, for those who are so inclined, does not seem to be unsafe, he said.

 

 



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for EXERCISE to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#5 proileri

  • Guest
  • 80 posts
  • 2

Posted 03 July 2015 - 09:27 AM

 

Interesting stuff. Honestly, I'm surprised that the higher levels of exercise were not bad.

 

 

 

IIRC, pretty much all studies I have seen have indicated that you need to exercise extreme amounts to make it harmful - in the running study that was previously discussed, it was the top 15% or so of enthusiast runners who were in risk of harm (or no benefits), and to be in that group you most likely have to train hard every day. Usually the studies have shown an U-shaped curve, though, where benefits start to diminish after certain point (but usually do not reach 0).

 

In the first study, there's a slight beginning of the negative portion (= less than optimal) of an U-shaped curve in 10 x the recommended daily amounts (10 x 7.5 = 75 met-hrs / week) group, optimal being in the 3-5 x recommended group. In the second study, I would say the last category was set too low to see the beginning of the negative portion, only at 300+ min of walking.

 

All in all, it seems to support past studies that the optimal amount of exercise is somewhere around 4-6 hrs / week, and more vigorous exercise within that time window is usually better. 


Edited by proileri, 03 July 2015 - 09:29 AM.

  • Agree x 1





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users