Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry Solomon

[Guest guest]

This " Exercise Myth " book sounds like a lot of nonsense. Exercise is good

and more exercise is better, up to a point. Up to the point, that is, when too

many free radicals are produced so as to overwhelm natural anti-oxidants

(endogenous and ingested). Vigorous cardiovascular exercise decreasees

blood pressure, builds collateral blood vessels in the heart and elsewhere,

increases the metabolism rate, increases the secretion of various hormones

(e.g., growth hormone), increases lung vital capacity, decreases heart rate,

increases oxygen saturation of hemoglobin, increases HDLs, decreases

chronic inflammation and its indicators (e.g, C reactive protein, TNF-alpha,

etc.), increases the secretion of endorphins, etc. Besides, it feels good.

Resistance exercises, such as weight lifting, builds muscle mass and strength

(thus protecting joints and limbs and preventing injury), improves the body's

ability to work efficiently, helps improve bone growth and metabolism

(anabolic processes in bone), helps prevent osteoporosis, diminishes body

fat percentage, stimulates the production of hormones (growth hormone,

testosterone, etc.), counteracts the tendency to lose muscle mass with age

that can lead to frailty, etc.

Of course, taken from the CRON pov, many of the benefits of exercise are also

provided by CRON, and therefore, exercise is probably good for CRONies,

but only up to a point. What that point is, is not clear.

On April 14, 2003 there was an article by the Associated Press titled:

" Study: Only Vigorous Exercise Helps Heart. " Note that this is only one study,

and that when compared to other studies, the situation is complex.

LONDON (AP) -- A half-hour brisk walk every day may make

you feel better, but it is not enough to ward off premature

death from heart trouble, new research suggests.

A study published this week in Heart, a British medical

journal, found that only vigorous exercise -- such as

jogging, hiking, climbing stairs, racket sports and

swimming -- seems to help lower the risk of early death

from heart disease. Other research has shown moderate

exercise helps...

....However, the latest study, conducted by scientists at

Queen's University in Belfast, Northern Ireland, found that

activities considered to provide mild exercise -- such as

walking, bowling and sailing -- as well as pursuits of

moderate intensity -- such as golfing, dancing and brisk

walking -- did not lower the risk of early death among

2,000 British men followed for a decade....

....Previous research has yielded conflicting results, dividing

experts between a group that believes moderate exercise is

enough and a smaller group convinced that vigorous exercise

is needed before any heart benefit can occur...

....Only vigorous exercise was linked with a reduction in the

risk of death from heart disease or any other cause within

the 10 years of the study. The more heavy exercise the men

did, the less their chances of dying during the study...

Thin Man

> The Exercise Myth

>

> <http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/solomonh/index.htm>

>

> by Dr Henry

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

So I guess what we can all agree on is: that not everyone is in

agreement.

But there do seem to be people on both sides of the argument who

would like us to believe they are right and the case is closed.

My guess is that CRON is far more important than any form of

exercise.

Rodney.

> > The Exercise Myth

> >

> >

<http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/solomonh/index.htm>

> >

> > by Dr Henry

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

That's the point!! That training for marathons is too much!! The human

body was not designed to train for and then run 26.5 miles straight!

on 11/18/2003 7:47 PM, thin_man02 at thin_man02@... wrote:

> This " Exercise Myth " book sounds like a lot of nonsense. Exercise is good

> and more exercise is better, up to a point. Up to the point, that is, when

> too

> many free radicals are produced so as to overwhelm natural anti-oxidants

> (endogenous and ingested).

[Guest guest]

I believe the argument is not that training at marathon level is unhealthy

per se, but that consuming the extra calories required to support running

50-100 miles per week is inconsistent with simultaneously restricting

calories.

JR

PS: I was capable of running 26.2 miles at least once without any noticeable

damage, perhaps some lingering mental affectation that leads me to brag

about it.

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

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 4:55 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

That's the point!! That training for marathons is too much!! The human

body was not designed to train for and then run 26.5 miles straight!

on 11/18/2003 7:47 PM, thin_man02 at thin_man02@... wrote:

> This " Exercise Myth " book sounds like a lot of nonsense. Exercise is good

> and more exercise is better, up to a point. Up to the point, that is,

when

> too

> many free radicals are produced so as to overwhelm natural anti-oxidants

> (endogenous and ingested).

[Guest guest]

---- Original Message -----

From: john roberts

Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:24 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

I believe the argument is not that training at marathon level is unhealthyper se, but that consuming the extra calories required to support running50-100 miles per week is inconsistent with simultaneously restrictingcalories.

Newbie here But I agree. Also I did want to say that when I trained for a marathon, at my peak I was running around 40 miles per week (only) and did fine, in fact IMO great, on my (first and only) marathon - never hitting a "wall" (I honestly felt good and energetic throughout), running negative splits and doing it in 3:52 (I know that's not THAT great, but I was quite happy with that time). I also never had an "obsessive" mindset when going about my training. I enjoyed it. I simply made my schedule of 4-5 days per week running, and I stuck to it. I found the experience quite fullfilling, although I may not ever do one again. At first I wanted to go right back into training (but I was trying to get pg so didn't). But now that I've discovered CR, I guess you could say, I'm realizing that a better thing for me is walking, which I do on an incline and fast, so I can work up a great sweat, but I suffer none of the pains that I did with running (shin splints and ankle problems). Also, during my 5-mo training I got three colds, which is very unusual for me. I usually only get one cold a year.

Just my .02 on the matter.

Jody

[Guest guest]

--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

wrote:

> I believe the argument is not that training at marathon level is unhealthy

> per se, but that consuming the extra calories required to support running

> 50-100 miles per week is inconsistent with simultaneously restricting

> calories.

>

> JR

By consuming the extra calories required to support running 50-100 miles per

week and then burning them (i.e., oxidation processes), excessive free

radicals (e.g., peroxides, singlet and triplet oxygen, etc.), damaging to

cellular

" machinery, " are produced that can overwhelm the antii-oxidant mechanisms

of cells. Further, it is known that burning calories, and thus losing weight

and

becoming thin, confers no CR benefit. CR is a totally separate process from

losing weight through exercise.

We know from gene chip studies that CRON causes certain genes to " turn on

or off " so that the genetic profile is that of a younger individual. The CRON

genetic profile appears to be a conservative, protective one that favors cell

repair instead of cell growth. Exercise stimulates anabolic (i.e., growth and

reproduction) processes of tissues, so, in this way, it may also counteract

CRON.

In my reading about CRON, I remember the following order, with the last

being the best for longevity: 1. no CR + no exercise, 2. no CR + exercise, 3.

CR + exercise, 4. CR + no exercise. In some animal studies, the difference

between nos. 3 and 4 was small. It may be that exercise extends average

lifespan while limiting or slightly diminishing maximum lifespan.

Interestingly, overweight individuals (non-obese) who exercise and are in

good shape, are considered to be healthier (e.g., cardovascularly) than

normal weight individuals who do not exercise. However, this has nothing to

do with CR.

Thin Man

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

So perhaps the issue here for longevity is what kind and amount of

exercise will provide the strength, endurance and flexibility

required to function well at an advanced age, while burning off the

smallest number of calories getting there?

It also seems logical to me (but many things that seem perfectly

logical are also complete hogwash!) that people on a poor,

cholesterol-raising, diet may be more in need of exercise than those

on a healthy diet, as one would be under Walford's CR.

Rodney.

> > I believe the argument is not that training at marathon level is

unhealthy

> > per se, but that consuming the extra calories required to support

running

> > 50-100 miles per week is inconsistent with simultaneously

restricting

> > calories.

> >

> > JR

>

> By consuming the extra calories required to support running 50-100

miles per

> week and then burning them (i.e., oxidation processes), excessive

free

> radicals (e.g., peroxides, singlet and triplet oxygen, etc.),

damaging to cellular

> " machinery, " are produced that can overwhelm the antii-oxidant

mechanisms

> of cells. Further, it is known that burning calories, and thus

losing weight and

> becoming thin, confers no CR benefit. CR is a totally separate

process from

> losing weight through exercise.

>

> We know from gene chip studies that CRON causes certain genes

to " turn on

> or off " so that the genetic profile is that of a younger

individual. The CRON

> genetic profile appears to be a conservative, protective one that

favors cell

> repair instead of cell growth. Exercise stimulates anabolic (i.e.,

growth and

> reproduction) processes of tissues, so, in this way, it may also

counteract

> CRON.

>

> In my reading about CRON, I remember the following order, with the

last

> being the best for longevity: 1. no CR + no exercise, 2. no CR +

exercise, 3.

> CR + exercise, 4. CR + no exercise. In some animal studies, the

difference

> between nos. 3 and 4 was small. It may be that exercise extends

average

> lifespan while limiting or slightly diminishing maximum lifespan.

>

> Interestingly, overweight individuals (non-obese) who exercise and

are in

> good shape, are considered to be healthier (e.g., cardovascularly)

than

> normal weight individuals who do not exercise. However, this has

nothing to

> do with CR.

>

> Thin Man

[Guest guest]

The damage of course will not be " noticed " . Just as other " damage " such as

overeating, clogging arteries, etc is not " noticed " . In fact at the time of

overeating or eating unhealthy fats or sugars, it " feels " pretty good, which

is exactly why people do it over and over again.

on 11/19/2003 11:24 PM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

> PS: I was capable of running 26.2 miles at least once without any noticeable

> damage, perhaps some lingering mental affectation that leads me to brag

> about it.

[Guest guest]

FWIW I was able to wean myself off sugary donuts which were often available

free and in quantity at my old job by focusing beyond the short term taste

pleasure to the following unpleasant dip in blood sugar after the insulin

response kicked in....

You may be correct in your statement that distance running is somehow

damaging but I have not seen any supporting studies. Do you have any

scientific citations? I really am interested as a regular 15 mile/week

runner. I ran my one marathon back in '95 and haven't yet noticed any

deleterious impact.

I personally exercise beyond what even I consider optimal for living beyond

120 but I make that decision cognizant, favoring quality of life and

functionality. I do not advocate that others do as I do, only that they

choose the best path for their personal needs and desire.

JR

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

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:41 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

The damage of course will not be " noticed " . Just as other " damage " such as

overeating, clogging arteries, etc is not " noticed " . In fact at the time of

overeating or eating unhealthy fats or sugars, it " feels " pretty good, which

is exactly why people do it over and over again.

on 11/19/2003 11:24 PM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

> PS: I was capable of running 26.2 miles at least once without any

noticeable

> damage, perhaps some lingering mental affectation that leads me to brag

> about it.

[Guest guest]

There are numerous discussions in BT120YD, but the pick out just one. From

pg 199:

" Persons engaged in marathons and other exhaustive sports might wish to

consider this (considerable oxidative damage) although the main lesson here

for life extenders may be not to undertake this kind of sport at all. The

data also suggests that .......beginning vigorous exercise too late in life

may be counterproductive. This is in line with rodent data. "

on 11/20/2003 11:13 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

> FWIW I was able to wean myself off sugary donuts which were often available

> free and in quantity at my old job by focusing beyond the short term taste

> pleasure to the following unpleasant dip in blood sugar after the insulin

> response kicked in....

>

> You may be correct in your statement that distance running is somehow

> damaging but I have not seen any supporting studies. Do you have any

> scientific citations? I really am interested as a regular 15 mile/week

> runner. I ran my one marathon back in '95 and haven't yet noticed any

> deleterious impact.

>

> I personally exercise beyond what even I consider optimal for living beyond

> 120 but I make that decision cognizant, favoring quality of life and

> functionality. I do not advocate that others do as I do, only that they

> choose the best path for their personal needs and desire.

>

> JR

>

>

>

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

> From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:41 AM

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

>

>

> The damage of course will not be " noticed " . Just as other " damage " such as

> overeating, clogging arteries, etc is not " noticed " . In fact at the time of

> overeating or eating unhealthy fats or sugars, it " feels " pretty good, which

> is exactly why people do it over and over again.

>

>

> on 11/19/2003 11:24 PM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

>

>> PS: I was capable of running 26.2 miles at least once without any

> noticeable

>> damage, perhaps some lingering mental affectation that leads me to brag

>> about it.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

So there is rodent data about running marathons? I wonder if they get tiny

medals at the finish line :-)

I stand by my original comments, do what I say (marathon level training is

inconsistent with CRON), not what " I " do....

JR

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

From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:53 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

There are numerous discussions in BT120YD, but the pick out just one. From

pg 199:

" Persons engaged in marathons and other exhaustive sports might wish to

consider this (considerable oxidative damage) although the main lesson here

for life extenders may be not to undertake this kind of sport at all. The

data also suggests that .......beginning vigorous exercise too late in life

may be counterproductive. This is in line with rodent data. "

on 11/20/2003 11:13 AM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

> FWIW I was able to wean myself off sugary donuts which were often

available

> free and in quantity at my old job by focusing beyond the short term taste

> pleasure to the following unpleasant dip in blood sugar after the insulin

> response kicked in....

>

> You may be correct in your statement that distance running is somehow

> damaging but I have not seen any supporting studies. Do you have any

> scientific citations? I really am interested as a regular 15 mile/week

> runner. I ran my one marathon back in '95 and haven't yet noticed any

> deleterious impact.

>

> I personally exercise beyond what even I consider optimal for living

beyond

> 120 but I make that decision cognizant, favoring quality of life and

> functionality. I do not advocate that others do as I do, only that they

> choose the best path for their personal needs and desire.

>

> JR

>

>

>

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

> From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]

> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 8:41 AM

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

>

>

> The damage of course will not be " noticed " . Just as other " damage " such

as

> overeating, clogging arteries, etc is not " noticed " . In fact at the time

of

> overeating or eating unhealthy fats or sugars, it " feels " pretty good,

which

> is exactly why people do it over and over again.

>

>

> on 11/19/2003 11:24 PM, john roberts at johnhrob@... wrote:

>

>> PS: I was capable of running 26.2 miles at least once without any

> noticeable

>> damage, perhaps some lingering mental affectation that leads me to brag

>> about it.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

But Fran, we don't know if beginning CR too late in life is counter productive either. Especially if one is overweight. Vigorous exercise is probably self limiting.

Regards.

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

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:53 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

There are numerous discussions in BT120YD, but the pick out just one. Frompg 199: "Persons engaged in marathons and other exhaustive sports might wish toconsider this (considerable oxidative damage) although the main lesson herefor life extenders may be not to undertake this kind of sport at all. Thedata also suggests that .......beginning vigorous exercise too late in lifemay be counterproductive. This is in line with rodent data."

[Guest guest]

An example. I can walk for 2 mins and run for 1 min for maybe 2 miles. Should I give up running because of some fear, or keep trying to improve the old system? Maybe the running will open up the breathing channels? That's a hard question for anyone to answer because there is no data. Cardio says as long as you don't have chest pains (I've had the cath). That's the closest I found to a warning signal.

Should I rely on what others did who aren't doing CR? One friend died at 65yo with an aneurysm, after running for 20 yrs - 5 miles each morning. He also married a young woman. So which killed him?

I see a lot of old people running marathons. (on TV).

Regards.

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

From: john roberts

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:39 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

So there is rodent data about running marathons? I wonder if they get tinymedals at the finish line :-)I stand by my original comments, do what I say (marathon level training isinconsistent with CRON), not what "I" do....JR-----Original Message-----From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry There are numerous discussions in BT120YD, but the pick out just one. Frompg 199:"Persons engaged in marathons and other exhaustive sports might wish toconsider this (considerable oxidative damage) although the main lesson herefor life extenders may be not to undertake this kind of sport at all. Thedata also suggests that .......beginning vigorous exercise too late in lifemay be counterproductive. This is in line with rodent data."

[Guest guest]

We've had numerous postings that beginning CRON late in life works! of

course the earlier, the better; but nevertheless some CRON is better than no

CRON. You needn't be a rocket scientist to ascertain you're healthier than

you were before. Besides the numerous lab tests, which point to improved

BP, blood lipids, etc. I rarely get sick anymore, feel better, look better

etc. In my case, my head of hair is also more lustrous, thicker etc.

(which mimics the CRON mice's shiny fur in the lab experiments). At a shop

I frequent which gives seniors a discount, lately (God bless 'em), they've

started " carding " me - they don't believe I'm over 55. For the record I'm

WELL over 55.

on 11/20/2003 2:31 PM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:

> But Fran, we don't know if beginning CR too late in life is counter productive

> either. Especially if one is overweight. Vigorous exercise is probably self

> limiting.

[Guest guest]

The question is What is works? Just losing weight, eating less and feeling better does not mean extended life. Maybe more comfortable - maybe not. Anyway, the words used were TOO late in life. What is that? Maybe 74 is ok to start marathons if he plans to live to 100. You judge it by your hair? I can't do that. You think mine'll grow back? My wife and I both look better from losing weight, but that's hardly proof of CR life extension. I just don't think it has been or can be shown yet that marathons are counterproductive.

Regards.

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

From: Francesca Skelton

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:46 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

We've had numerous postings that beginning CRON late in life works! ofcourse the earlier, the better; but nevertheless some CRON is better than noCRON. You needn't be a rocket scientist to ascertain you're healthier thanyou were before. Besides the numerous lab tests, which point to improvedBP, blood lipids, etc. I rarely get sick anymore, feel better, look betteretc. In my case, my head of hair is also more lustrous, thicker etc.(which mimics the CRON mice's shiny fur in the lab experiments). At a shopI frequent which gives seniors a discount, lately (God bless 'em), they'vestarted "carding" me - they don't believe I'm over 55. For the record I'mWELL over 55.on 11/20/2003 2:31 PM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:> But Fran, we don't know if beginning CR too late in life is counter productive> either. Especially if one is overweight. Vigorous exercise is probably self> limiting.

[Guest guest]

Hello Thin_Man02 and CR ALL:

The post you made below seems like a balanced and informative

message about exercise and CR. Thanks! I made one comment,

spliced into the message text (which I modified slightly).

-- Warren

---------------------------------

On 20 Nov 2003, thin_man02 [mailto:thin_man02@...] wrote:

" <johnhrob@n...> wrote:

> I believe the argument is not that training at marathon level is unhealthy

> per se, but that consuming the extra calories required to support running

> 50-100 miles per week is inconsistent with simultaneously restricting

> calories.

>

> JR

By consuming the extra calories required to support running 50-100 miles

per week and then burning them (i.e., oxidation processes), excessive free

radicals (e.g., peroxides, singlet and triplet oxygen, etc.), damaging to

cellular " machinery, " are produced that can overwhelm the anti-oxidant

mechanisms of cells. Further, it is known that burning calories, and thus

losing weight and becoming thin, confers no CR benefit. CR is a totally

separate process from losing weight through exercise.

We know from gene chip studies that CRON causes certain genes to " turn on

or off " so that the genetic profile is that of a younger individual.

The CRON genetic profile appears to be a conservative, protective one that

favors cell repair instead of cell growth. Exercise stimulates anabolic

(i.e., growth and reproduction) processes of tissues, so, in this way,

it may also counteract CRON.

In my reading about CRON, I remember the following order,

-----------------------------------------------------------

(Mod Warren made to show more clearly -- Best to Worst for lifespan):

-- 1) CR + no exercise

-- 2) CR + exercise

-- 3) No CR + exercise

-- 4) No CR + no exercise

-------------------------------------------------------------

Warren comment:

The differences between 1) and 2) were small, when the exercise

level was small. The increased functionality, improved sense

of well-being, the brain stimulation, and the neural protection

and regeneration gained from exercise are missing from consideration

when lifespan only is considered.

The fact that humans must function and compete in a real world,

rather than remaining protected and nurtured in solitary cages,

may make exercise a more important factor for humans.

---------------------------------------------------------------

It may be that exercise extends average lifespan while limiting or

slightly diminishing maximum lifespan.

Interestingly, overweight individuals (non-obese) who exercise and

are in good shape, are considered to be healthier

(e.g., cardovascularly) than normal weight individuals who

do not exercise. However, this has nothing to do with CR.

Thin Man

[Guest guest]

Hi Warren,

Can it be estimated what amount of exercise constitutes "exercise"? For example, is there any way other than gut feel, to judge whether a daily 3 mile walk is the better over no exercise or better than a marathon?

If I could measure arterial Blood pressure, I could judge better.

There must be some way to estimate the best exercise req'ts.

Regards.

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

From: Warren

Cc: crsociety@...

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 11:01 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

Hello Thin_Man02 and CR ALL:In my reading about CRON, I remember the following order,-----------------------------------------------------------(Mod Warren made to show more clearly -- Best to Worst for lifespan): -- 1) CR + no exercise -- 2) CR + exercise -- 3) No CR + exercise -- 4) No CR + no exercise

[Guest guest]

If you do an analysis of the actual work involved between walking vs. running you are doing approximately the same work per unit distance. The main difference is the rate at which you do that work. At modest work rates (you are not breathing so hard that you can't easily carry on a conversation) your body will preferentially burn fat and not generate lactic acid (the stuff that makes you sore) from inefficient burning of stored carbohydrates.

I would not presume to give you personal advice. Strenuous exercise is no panacea. IMO some is good, how much is best is not clear and may be confounded by conflicting goals. While running may be the stressor that causes an aneurysm to fail, it did not cause that aneurysm. Whether a young wife is healthful probably depends on the individual and circumstance (but it sounds good to me ;-).

How much exercise is best for you is worth discussing with your personal physician, and whether it appears to be a positive factor in your apparent health. YMMV.

JR

-----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

An example. I can walk for 2 mins and run for 1 min for maybe 2 miles. Should I give up running because of some fear, or keep trying to improve the old system? Maybe the running will open up the breathing channels? That's a hard question for anyone to answer because there is no data. Cardio says as long as you don't have chest pains (I've had the cath). That's the closest I found to a warning signal.

Should I rely on what others did who aren't doing CR? One friend died at 65yo with an aneurysm, after running for 20 yrs - 5 miles each morning. He also married a young woman. So which killed him?

I see a lot of old people running marathons. (on TV).

Regards.

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

From: john roberts

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 12:39 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

So there is rodent data about running marathons? I wonder if they get tinymedals at the finish line :-)I stand by my original comments, do what I say (marathon level training isinconsistent with CRON), not what "I" do....JR-----Original Message-----From: Francesca Skelton [mailto:fskelton@...]Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry There are numerous discussions in BT120YD, but the pick out just one. Frompg 199:"Persons engaged in marathons and other exhaustive sports might wish toconsider this (considerable oxidative damage) although the main lesson herefor life extenders may be not to undertake this kind of sport at all. Thedata also suggests that .......beginning vigorous exercise too late in lifemay be counterproductive. This is in line with rodent data."

[Guest guest]

The fact is, the docs don't know. The fitness guys won't say anything to a hypertensive (if they're smart). So we are at the mercy of our own initiatives. CR got me to the point where I could walk 3miles. So I have to do logical evaluations of the info. My family didn't have heart disease, but they didn't live that long either (<80).

As fast as I can walk, I never reach the point where I can't talk. That's somewhere around 4.2 mph. At that rate my legs will tire first. Climbing 21 real flights of stairs same thing. Part of that is a calcium blocker preventing excess blood flow and excess blood pressure. One could logically argue the drug is limiting running (correctly) and the doc agrees that might be the limitation. Of course I'm not going to stop taking the drug until my resting pressure is low enough. That's probably 20# lighter and 2 years from now.

So I guess I keep working on it, increasing running to see if the breathing improves.

Regards.

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

From: john roberts

Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 2:20 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: The Exercise Myth -- Dr. Henry

If you do an analysis of the actual work involved between walking vs. running you are doing approximately the same work per unit distance. The main difference is the rate at which you do that work. At modest work rates (you are not breathing so hard that you can't easily carry on a conversation) your body will preferentially burn fat and not generate lactic acid (the stuff that makes you sore) from inefficient burning of stored carbohydrates.

I would not presume to give you personal advice. Strenuous exercise is no panacea. IMO some is good, how much is best is not clear and may be confounded by conflicting goals. While running may be the stressor that causes an aneurysm to fail, it did not cause that aneurysm. Whether a young wife is healthful probably depends on the individual and circumstance (but it sounds good to me ;-).

How much exercise is best for you is worth discussing with your personal physician, and whether it appears to be a positive factor in your apparent health. YMMV.

JR