RE: Exercise / Not Smoking / Nutrition / Wine

[Guest guest]

If I take things to the limits, often they become more clear.

EG, if I sit on the couch and watch tv and do NOTHING else, I will lose weight. But people don't do that - they EAT a lot watching tv. So the bad part is not the lack of exercise - it's the calories.

In the overall picture there are systems in the body that want movement - peristalsis, lymph, and usage of muscles to keep strength.

"The researchers followed more than 1,500 elderly people aged 70 to 90 from 11 European over 10 years. ...When an elderly person adopted all four measures their risk of dying was 65% lower over 10 years. During the follow-up, 935 of the elderly participants in the study died. "

I would need to see the math analysis to support the conclusion, but I don't doubt that exercise is important. I tend to think that people who CAN exercise - do exercise. Making those patients exercise, that can't exercise, blurs my conclusions.

My take is that calories and weight control are far more important, especially since

"Cardiovascular disease, such as heart attacks and strokes, caused 371 of these deaths."

And these are people 70 to 90, who have a large amount of "aging" to their systems already. How healthy were they are test start?

Now I'll head for the treadmill.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:00 AM

Subject: [ ] Exercise / Not Smoking / Nutrition / Wine

Hi folks:According to one study, exercise, not smoking, nutrition and wine (in order of importance) reduce mortality by 65% in older people.Is exercise really THAT important?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3679224.stmRodney.

[Guest guest]

At 55 yo I find exercise and ability to still participate in sport a huge

factor in maintaining high QOL. I would do it if it was health neutral, of

course there can always be too much of a good thing but that is probably not

an issue for most.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:01 AM

Subject: [ ] Exercise / Not Smoking / Nutrition / Wine

Hi folks:

According to one study, exercise, not smoking, nutrition and wine (in

order of importance) reduce mortality by 65% in older people.

Is exercise really THAT important?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3679224.stm

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

>>According to one study, exercise, not smoking, nutrition and wine (in

order of importance) reduce mortality by 65% in older people. Is

exercise really THAT important?

Perhaps, though it may be " semantics " , it has to do with how we define

" exercise " . When they look at the Pima Indians that live in Mexico,

they have no formal exercise in their lifestyle (probably don't even

know what the word means), yet their lifestyle includes the equivalent

of 23 hours of hard physical exercise a week.

We are an extremely sedentary society. If we take a sedentary person

and have them engage in 30 minutes of physical activity a day (as the

study Rodney referenced statedis what counted as exercise), such as

brisk walking, its that really an increase in exercise or is it a

decrease in sedentary behaviour?

Maybe there is a minimal amount of " activity " we need that regardless of

how you define it (exercise, physical activity, brisk walking, etc),

including it, will reduce mortality. At some point, just the process

of obtaining our food and nourishment, even a minimal amount, and just

staying alive, had to include a certain level of activity. Now, for

virtually no output, we can input 1000's of calories.

When they put pedometers on average americans, they ended up with about

2500-3000 steps a day (or the equivalent of walking about 1-1.5 miles a

day). They said about 10,000 was probably more typical of what we got

before all the modern conveniences and technology entered our lives.

So, if you increase your basic " activity " level from 2500 to 10,000 is

that really exercise or is it reducing your sedentary lifestyle?

The other day, I put a pedometer on and achieved about 10,000 steps

without counting any formal exercise, just from walking everywhere I go

and walking around a lot at work. I did no formal exercise that day.

So, did I " exercise " or was I " active " or was it just another day to me?

If surveyed, would I say I included about 30 minutes of physical

activity that day or not?

??

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Not to disagree.

I conversed once with a cardio in Finland who said many of his patients do physical labor to the point of exhaustion and yet suffer HTN, and CVD in higher numbers than other EU's. They had a high intake of fat from fish.

I've also noted that there are a large number of people who do farm work, and get obese. The exercise types have said it's because they don't do aerobic exercise, but that just doesn't make sense to me. When I work in the garden I sweat a great deal more than walking 3 miles. In fact, walking is easy compared to digging, raking, if I measure it by sweat. If it's truly anaerobic it should use more calories, since aerobic is more efficient.

I have a pedometer and often walk 3 miles following my wife shopping and I feel that's as good for lowering BP as "brisk" walking.

It's the excess calories.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 1:56 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Exercise / Not Smoking / Nutrition / Wine

>>According to one study, exercise, not smoking, nutrition and wine (inorder of importance) reduce mortality by 65% in older people. Isexercise really THAT important?Perhaps, though it may be "semantics", it has to do with how we define"exercise". When they look at the Pima Indians that live in Mexico,they have no formal exercise in their lifestyle (probably don't evenknow what the word means), yet their lifestyle includes the equivalentof 23 hours of hard physical exercise a week.We are an extremely sedentary society. If we take a sedentary personand have them engage in 30 minutes of physical activity a day (as thestudy Rodney referenced statedis what counted as exercise), such asbrisk walking, its that really an increase in exercise or is it adecrease in sedentary behaviour? Maybe there is a minimal amount of "activity" we need that regardless ofhow you define it (exercise, physical activity, brisk walking, etc),including it, will reduce mortality. At some point, just the processof obtaining our food and nourishment, even a minimal amount, and juststaying alive, had to include a certain level of activity. Now, forvirtually no output, we can input 1000's of calories. When they put pedometers on average americans, they ended up with about2500-3000 steps a day (or the equivalent of walking about 1-1.5 miles aday). They said about 10,000 was probably more typical of what we gotbefore all the modern conveniences and technology entered our lives.So, if you increase your basic "activity" level from 2500 to 10,000 isthat really exercise or is it reducing your sedentary lifestyle?The other day, I put a pedometer on and achieved about 10,000 stepswithout counting any formal exercise, just from walking everywhere I goand walking around a lot at work. I did no formal exercise that day.So, did I "exercise" or was I "active" or was it just another day to me?If surveyed, would I say I included about 30 minutes of physicalactivity that day or not???Jeff

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/22/04 8:01:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, perspect1111@... writes:

According to one study, exercise, not smoking, nutrition and wine (in

order of importance) reduce mortality by 65% in older people.

Is exercise really THAT important?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3679224.stm

I think it would be great if most/all studies asked at least a simple question on activity level. But some are going the wrong way. IIRC, the Nurses' Study long-form questionaire for 2003 dropped that question - and the table on that the same website (which tracks which questions were used in each year) shows it was also dropped in 2002.

Maybe they think that the participants are just getting too old and rickety. But they lose out on identifying the (perhaps small) number who do exercise regularly - and might have stellar results. Or maybe their intermediate analyses showed no great benefit to exercise?

--

Ken

[Guest guest]

Defining what exercise IS may be the problem.

Difficult to guess what "activity level" is.

There's the diff in working a garden (not exercise), versus walking/running (exercise), versus calisthenics (may be exercise), versus stretching/yoga (not exercise), versus weight lifting (not exercise).

In my experience nothing beats just walking for maximizing the "exercise effect" and minimizing the joint wear.

Looking at what Olders do, if they do start exercise, they reach a point where the knees or hips develop pain, maybe surgery, maybe a fall, and that slows them up for a while, enough to de-emphasize the habit.

I watched my thin athletic yard man, while cutting 4 or 5 yards per day, full time work, develop after 50 into a fatter, less active yard man doing 1 or 2 yards per day with rest periods in the A/C truck.

Another, my 90 yo neighbor in 1990 to 1995 walking 5 miles several times per weeks, fighting heart disease, getting angioplasties get knee surgery and quit walking due to pain. Then a quad coronary bypass, and his weight began building up until his wife became bedridden and couldn't cook. At 90 yo, he stroked about the same time his wife died. Now after stroke recovery, better food/calorie control, walking again a mile or two at 91yo. There's no doubt in my mind that walking (and not bike riding) will take me into the 90 - 100's.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: bpinfo@...

Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 10:38 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Exercise / Not Smoking / Nutrition / Wine

In a message dated 9/22/04 8:01:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, perspect1111@... writes:

According to one study, exercise, not smoking, nutrition and wine (in order of importance) reduce mortality by 65% in older people.Is exercise really THAT important?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3679224.stmI think it would be great if most/all studies asked at least a simple question on activity level. But some are going the wrong way. IIRC, the Nurses' Study long-form questionaire for 2003 dropped that question - and the table on that the same website (which tracks which questions were used in each year) shows it was also dropped in 2002.Maybe they think that the participants are just getting too old and rickety. But they lose out on identifying the (perhaps small) number who do exercise regularly - and might have stellar results. Or maybe their intermediate analyses showed no great benefit to exercise?-- Ken