RE: How much is enuf?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/04 9:06:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, freebird5005@... writes:

Proper endothelial function is healthy. Endothelial dysfunction is

linked to physical inactivity which is reversible with exercise. "Fit"

is a consequence of exercise. So how can consider yourself healthy if

you are not fit??

Perhaps not a simple question, as I discovered when I embarked on the same mental path recently as you do here. But what about a person who lives past 100, who can't run or walk fast at all? Were they not healthy? What if they outlive 90% or more of runners? What if a person who drinks and smokes and never exercises lives longer than you or I? Were they not "healthy"?

At the moment, I'd suggest that "healthy" means "lives long". If their genetics surpasses yours or my best efforts, who "wins"? Just food for thought.

--

Ken

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/15/04 9:45:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, freebird5005@... writes:

The problem with your definition is you must die before we can gauge

how healthy you are (were)

but that's the ultimate endpoint for health (not happiness), don't you think?

and if I don't die, but outlive you to read your obituary (or you, mine) then it's the same. so your point is yeileded errrr bad typre

>but definition makes little sense to

umpteen others who followed suit but died 30 years before. ;-)

philisophical, for those in the mood. And yet I always see myself not as part of a greater group. The greater group would not ever read this group, know about it, or if they were forced to know about it, care about it. So just by reading here, we are diffeerent. We're not watching the food channel show where the audience cheers for, "pork fat rules!".

Good maybe from time to time here to talk about such things...

--

kEN (hehe caps lock)

[Guest guest]

Proper endothelial function is healthy. Endothelial dysfunction is

linked to physical inactivity which is reversible with exercise. " Fit "

is a consequence of exercise. So how can consider yourself healthy if

you are not fit??

FreeBird

> > I think there a lot of people who think they are fit and think they

> are doing the best for their body, their techniques are different so

> that can't be true, but they think that for QOL, or whatever. It

> always boils down to some parameter we can measure. With Bernie it's

> heart rate, eg, with you possibly BMI or BF, with me BP, and with

> it's probably pace.

> >

> > I don't find those comforting, but it boils down to what can I DO?

> I can walk 3 mph easily WITHOUT raising heart rate. At 69 I can do

> many physical things that I don't even think about if I should or

> not. I don't see myself as old or weak.

> >

> > I do think I am much healthier at lowered weight and lower intake.

> So I must be more fit than I used to be.

> >

> > Regards.

> >

> > ----- Original Message -----

> > From: Rodney

> >

> > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:45 PM

> > Subject: [ ] Re: How much is enuf?

> >

> >

> >

> > Hi JR:

> >

> > Now you can relax. I only mentioned that number as an indication

> of

> > the TYPE OF THING that my understanding of the word fit applies

> to.

> > I.E. to endurance fitness. I would not even call a champion

> weight

> > lifter 'fit' as I understand the sense in which the term, it

> seems to

> > me, is normally used.

> >

> > I wanted to use a number that I didn't expect anyone to argue

> with by

> > saying " You think that is fit? " So choose your own number. But

> you

> > get my point. I think.

> >

> > It doesn't matter anyway, because " fitness has absolutely nothing

> to

> > do with health " ; ^ )))

> >

> > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

The problem with your definition is you must die before we can gauge

how healthy you are (were)

" Health " is at least the absence of disease and the preservation of

" normal " function.

A healthy lifestyle is one in which minimizes physiologic dysfunction,

or enhances physiological functioning wherever possible (ie, exceeding

the " natural " but optimizing the state in question).

Yes after you're dead @100 we can measure your lifespan and conclude

you lived a long and " healthy " life despite smoking 3 packs a day and

eating prime rib ever night but definition makes little sense to

umpteen others who followed suit but died 30 years before. ;-)

> In a message dated 10/15/04 9:06:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> freebird5005@y... writes:

>

> > Proper endothelial function is healthy. Endothelial dysfunction is

> > linked to physical inactivity which is reversible with exercise. " Fit "

> > is a consequence of exercise. So how can consider yourself healthy if

> > you are not fit??

>

> Perhaps not a simple question, as I discovered when I embarked on

the same

> mental path recently as you do here. But what about a person who

lives past 100,

> who can't run or walk fast at all? Were they not healthy? What if they

> outlive 90% or more of runners? What if a person who drinks and

smokes and never

> exercises lives longer than you or I? Were they not " healthy " ?

>

> At the moment, I'd suggest that " healthy " means " lives long " . If their

> genetics surpasses yours or my best efforts, who " wins " ? Just food

for thought.

>

> --

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

This is a re-post of some ideas I recently posted on the CR society

web page. I've decided to re-post here because I'm interested in

seeing if I get a different response this time around.

For some time I've been wondering if anabolism in general and

resistance training in particular (which of course tends to result

in greater anabolism) is anti-CR.

So far as I know, nobody's done an experiment combining CR with

resistance training. So what follows below is purely speculative. If

anyone reading this is considering conducting such an experiment,

I've often thought that operant conditioning with a progressively

more strenuous bar-pressor task could be a relatively easy way of

getting rodents to " pump iron " .

As for the idea that resistance training could be anti-CR, I admit

up-front that I am a lay person, and my reasoning may be a bit wild

and woolly. That said, it does seem to me that in general, longevity

is _inversely_ associated with anabolism. Consider the following:

1. The hormonal effects of CR and resistance training seem basically

opposite: CR lowers growth hormone and testosterone, while

resistance training increases them.

2. A commonly reported side-effect of anabolic steroids is

accelerated aging.

3. In humans, size seems to be inversely associated with longevity.

As I understand previous discussions on the CR society list, even

_height_ is inversely associated with longevity.

4. Across most mammalian species, males are both physically larger

and shorter lived than females.

5. " Yoda " , the mouse genetically engineered for longevity who lived

to 4 years and 12 days was also miniscule even for a mouse. He also

had hormonal levels more in line with those produced by CR – again,

quite opposite to the changes we see resulting from resistance

training.

6. It is often theorised that organisms must make tradeoffs between

self-maintenance (anti-aging) and using energy for other purposes,

such as reaching sexual maturity. Anabolism may well fall into the

category of " other purposes " .

I'm not saying any one of these points is conclusive. I am saying

that together they are sufficiently suggestive that we should

consider the idea that resistance training may significantly

counteract the effects of CR. To what extent I have no idea.

I'd also like to make it clear that I accept that resistance

training does have real benefits – particularly in the area of

preventing osteoporosis. However, I also think that we can get a lot

of those same benefits from aerobic training: particularly weight

bearing aerobic training. Perhaps not quite to the same degree, but

to a very substantial degree nonetheless.

The big advantage of aerobic training for CRONies is that rodent

experiments _have_ been done combining CR with aerobic exercise: All

but one showed an increase in longevity with aerobic exercise. Given

that human data also seems to generally support the idea that

aerobic exercise increases average lifespan, there seems to be a

fairly solid case for including aerobic training in an overall

longevity program.

So, in summary my argument would be this: If we can get most of the

benefits of resistance training with a form of exercise that has

been shown to increase the average lifespan of CR-ed animals, and if

there is a real risk that resistance training could substantially

undo the effects of CR, it does seem to me that if longevity is

paramount, resistance training might not be such a good idea.

Any comments, people?

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 10/15/04 9:54:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> perspect1111@y... writes:

>

> > We have previously discussed using weight vests for osteoporosis

> > prevention. If you lose thirty pounds on CR why not habitually,

when

> > you can, wear a thirty pound weight vest?

>

> Hi, Rodney. Is there evidence that continual, lesser weight is

better than

> occasional, greater weight (as in weight lifting)?

Hi Bpinfo:

I am only aware that exercise has been shown to reduce bone loss and

to some extent build greater bone mass. I have no info on how

different types of exercise effect bone mass. But it seems to me

that carrying around an extra thirty pounds may be a lot beter than

walking a mile or two without the extra weight. And an additional

benefit is that if you do it at home during regular activities then

you are saving the time that you would otherwise have to be

exercising to get the same effect.

> >

> > As for heart rate. I believe the amount of blood pumped depends

on

> > heart rate and HEART PUMPING CAPACITY per beat. If you have a

low

> > pulse rate it usually means you have a large heart, and that

often is

> > the result of extensive endurance exercise earlier in life.

>

> I personally find that if my resting HR gets above 70, then I can

get resting

> rate back to 60 in fairly short order with runnning or squats.

OTOH, I'm sure

> you know that HR taken right after awakening can tell you if you're

> exercising too much - say, going upwards from 60 in my case.

>

> >

> > It is good to have a large heart. But I believe that endurance

> > athletes can have problems later in life if they do not continue

to

> > use that extra heart capacity, at least to a moderate extent.

>

> Hmmm, interesting point. I recall being surprised on seeing female

> bodybuilders talking (on tv) about how difficult it was to lose

skeletal muscle - when

> the trend in competitions was less towards female hulks. Do you

think that

> cardiac muscle would be the same or different in this regard?

Dunno. My IMPRESSION is that when a (athletically induced) large

heart 'atrophies' later in life due to lack of use, then it does not

simply shrink to normal size and proportions, it sort of 'shrivels'

for want of a better term. Then it doesn't work so well. But it was

a long time ago I read about this. So I cannot give you a source.

Nor guarantee the source's reliability.

>

> Also recall reading Sheehan (the running doctor) describe

how, in the

> 70s, his enlarged heart was often viewed with alarm by

cardiologists who

> hadn't been used to seeing anything but the usual, and equated it

with the

> " enlarged heart " as a sign of heart disease.

>

> --

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Hi Freebird:

The issue is how much exercise is required to secure the lion's share

of the health benefits to be had from exercise before diminishing

returns set in.

Being fit by my definition (endurance fit) requires a lot of

exercise. More, I believe, than that required to obtain the

benefits. Since more than a few very fit athletes have dramatically

clogged arteries it is clear that exercise does not afford much in

the way of protection against CVD.

Exercise has been shown to protect against colon cancer. But I am

not aware of any studies that looked at how much the effects differed

with different *amounts* of exercise.

In addition to , another source of information for me was an

organization set up by the canadian government in the 1970s

('Participaction') to try to get people to exercise more. I had

several discussions with the medical personnel there over the years.

They started out recommending the standard Aerobics idea that

you had to exercise extensively to get the benefits. I told them

about " The exercise Myth " . As the years went by they kept reducing

the amount of exercise recommended. The last time I spoke to them

they said that they now had come to realize that much less exercise

was necessary than they had originally believed. To the extent they

felt walking a few miles a few times a week was excellent. Although

they still maintained that some 'aerobic' activity did produce

greater benefits than just walking.

Rodney.

> > > I think there a lot of people who think they are fit and think

they

> > are doing the best for their body, their techniques are different

so

> > that can't be true, but they think that for QOL, or whatever. It

> > always boils down to some parameter we can measure. With Bernie

it's

> > heart rate, eg, with you possibly BMI or BF, with me BP, and with

> > it's probably pace.

> > >

> > > I don't find those comforting, but it boils down to what can I

DO?

> > I can walk 3 mph easily WITHOUT raising heart rate. At 69 I can

do

> > many physical things that I don't even think about if I should or

> > not. I don't see myself as old or weak.

> > >

> > > I do think I am much healthier at lowered weight and lower

intake.

> > So I must be more fit than I used to be.

> > >

> > > Regards.

> > >

> > > ----- Original Message -----

> > > From: Rodney

> > >

> > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 5:45 PM

> > > Subject: [ ] Re: How much is enuf?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi JR:

> > >

> > > Now you can relax. I only mentioned that number as an

indication

> > of

> > > the TYPE OF THING that my understanding of the word fit

applies

> > to.

> > > I.E. to endurance fitness. I would not even call a champion

> > weight

> > > lifter 'fit' as I understand the sense in which the term, it

> > seems to

> > > me, is normally used.

> > >

> > > I wanted to use a number that I didn't expect anyone to argue

> > with by

> > > saying " You think that is fit? " So choose your own number.

But

> > you

> > > get my point. I think.

> > >

> > > It doesn't matter anyway, because " fitness has absolutely

nothing

> > to

> > > do with health " ; ^ )))

> > >

> > > Rodney.

[Guest guest]

My first thought is to dissect your question. Since CR stands for caloric

restriction, being " anti-CR " suggests increased energy intake or absorption.

So to answer literally, I would say no. If you are asking does resistance

training work against life extension, I would say we don't know.

You suggest that aerobic exercise provides some of the benefit of resistance

training. This is probably because the difference between aerobic and

resistance training is a matter of degree and duration. To wit, is jogging

with a weight vest resistance or aerobic?

While this is an interesting academic pursuit, IMO it would take evidence of

a very strong life shortening effect to outweigh the QOL benefit of modest

resistance training. My guess is that if there is a mechanism it will likely

be non-linear (J shaped anyone?). While only one rat, Jack Lalane still

appears to be pretty vital at '90. So if he lives another 30.1 we'll have

one data point against your argument.

I wouldn't advise dropping weight training based on hypothesis. It is an

interesting question and like many things reinforces the merit of

moderation, moderation, moderation....

JR

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

From: timwilliamrogers [mailto:timwilliamrogers@...]

Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 11:22 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: How much is enuf?

This is a re-post of some ideas I recently posted on the CR society

web page. I've decided to re-post here because I'm interested in

seeing if I get a different response this time around.

For some time I've been wondering if anabolism in general and

resistance training in particular (which of course tends to result

in greater anabolism) is anti-CR.

Any comments, people?